The sitting begun and suspended on Monday 5 June 2000 was resumed at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair).

Assembly Business: Motion on Union Flag (Petition of Concern)

Mr Speaker: I have to report that a valid Petition of Concern in respect of the motion on the Union flag was tabled last evening, before the Business Office closed. Having checked the petition, I regard it as fulfilling the requirements of Standing Order 27 to allow the vote to take place at the conclusion of the debate today. The motion will require cross-community support to be adopted.
For Members who wish to inspect this or any future Petition of Concern, copies are available in the Business Office.

Northern Ireland Sportsmen

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, at the beginning of the sitting, I referred to the victory of Mr Joey Dunlop in the Isle of Man TT. [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order. The musical interlude is unwelcome in the Chamber.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I said that we congratulated him and that he certainly was the crowned king of the road. I conveyed my personal congratulations, and the House was unanimously pleased. In the House of Commons the Member representing the area concerned would normally express congratulations. Well, I am the Member for Joey’s area. I am not a prophet, or the son of a prophet, but he won the next day too. So he is indeed the crowned king of the road.
Last night it was said on television that the matter had not been raised in the House. The Minister concerned certainly did not raise it. People — especially people from Ballymoney — were ringing my home, irate that the impression had been given that the matter had not been raised in the House. You, Mr Speaker, know otherwise.
I want just to set the record straight so that the people of Ballymoney will know. I hope soon to join MrDunlop as a free man of that great town.

Mr Speaker: Order. I can confirm that the matter was raised yesterday. It is the first item in Hansard, and I am relieved that it is not on the pillion that Dr Paisley will be joining Mr Dunlop.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Dr Paisley raised the matter with me in the Lobby. It refers to my Ulster Television interview with Mike Nesbitt. When I was asked why I had not raised the matter in the House I said that it had been an oversight on my part. I understood that Mr Nesbitt was referring specifically to why I, as Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure, had not raised it.
Further to what Dr Paisley said — and as I said last night — there have been great achievements by our two sportsmen, and no one in this House would attempt to deny that. I was certainly not suggesting that Dr Paisley had not raised the matter yesterday; I was merely agreeing with Mike Nesbitt that I personally had not done so.

Mr Maurice Morrow: It says a lot that the Minister is so ill-informed about what goes on in the Assembly.
It is also appropriate to mention DarrenClarke, not just because he is a native of Dungannon but because he is an excellent ambassador with his great golfing achievements in recent years.

Mr Speaker: DrPaisley asked yesterday if it would be in order to make the comments that he made. He also expressed his condolences to the family of RaymondHanna. I am a little concerned, given the success of his point of order, that it could become popular for such matters to be raised at the start of sittings — not just congratulations but perhaps also the bestowal of good fortune for subsequent performances. I am not sure that this is within Standing Orders or something that we should make a habit of. However, the good wishes of the Assembly undoubtedly go to those who have been mentioned.

Assembly Business: Motion on Union Flag (Petition of Concern)

Mr Nigel Dodds: Mr Speaker, can you please clarify the situation with regard to Petitions of Concern. You have indicated that you received a Petition and that it has been accepted and is open to inspection. Standing Order 27(1) says
"No vote may be held on a matter which is the subject of a Petition of Concern until at least one day after the Petition of Concern has been presented."
How do you define "one day" in this case? Is it a period of 24hours, or can the vote be held at any time the next day? And when was this Petition of Concern tabled?

Mr Speaker: If you turn to the interpretation section at the back of Standing Orders you will find that "day" means a calendar day. It is not necessarily a period of 24hours. This interpretation was not in initial Standing Orders. A petition must be lodged before the Business Office closes on the day before the business to which it relates, and that is 30minutes after the rise of the House. Thus, the timing depends on the time of rising that day. This petition was received in due time and was checked by me. The information was then sent to all the Whips, though some may not have received it before their arrival this morning, having left promptly yesterday.

Mr Cedric Wilson: Will this Petition of Concern from the unholy alliance of the SDLP and SinnFéin— it is interesting to see all those names together— mean that DrPaisley’s motion, even if endorsed by a majority, will fall and that the pan-Nationalist front will be able to prevent the Union flag from being flown? Please clarify this for me and for the members of the public in the Gallery, MrSpeaker.

Mr Speaker: First, the Member must understand that such clarification is for the benefit of the House, and not for people in the Gallery. It is not appropriate for Members to respond to people in the Gallery. Secondly, I trust that the Member is fully aware of and very clear about the Standing Orders, though I am sure that he and other Members are.

Union Flag (Executive Buildings)

Mr Speaker: The Business Committee decided that two hours should be allocated for this debate. Given the substantial interest that has been shown and the number of Members wanting to speak, I have had to limit the times for this debate and for the debate this afternoon. There will be 15minutes for the moving of the motion and for winding up. If a Minister wishes to respond at the end of either debate, he or she too will have 15minutes. All other Members will have just five minutes so that as many as possible may be facilitated.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I beg to move the following motion:
That this Assembly directs that the Union flag shall be flown on Executive buildings in Northern Ireland on all designated days, in keeping with the arrangements for other parts of the United Kingdom and, additionally, on Parliament Buildings on all sitting days.

Mr John Tierney: Mr Speaker, when you refer to a Minister who can speak for 15minutes at the end of the debate, do you mean a Minister representing the Executive? Or is it any Minister?

Mr Speaker: It is only a Minister who is responding on behalf of the Executive. It would be normal practice that if the Executive wished to respond — and they do not have to do so, as all matters may not be within their remit — a Minister would make a winding-up speech immediately before that of the mover, and he or she would have 15minutes. That would be the case on this occasion. I have no indication, at present, that a Minister will respond in this debate.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: The Member need not be worried because I understand no Ministers will be replying, as they are not in a position to speak for a united Executive on this issue.
When I took my seat for the first time in this Chamber I never thought I would be here, 30years later, having to discuss such a motion. The fact that this motion is necessary today proves that concession after concession has been given to the pan-Nationalist front, and the names of their representatives are on the Petition of Concern. We know who they are and we know that their aim and common policy is to divest this part of the United Kingdom of all aspects of Britishness.
In the main hall of this building there are four rings just outside the entrance to the Members’ dining room. Two flags used to hang there — the flag of our nation and the standard of Northern Ireland. They were taken away. I did my best to find out who did it. No one has ever owned up to why they were taken away. Having divested the inside of the building of its flags the pan-Nationalist front are going to try and divest the outside of the building also. This is a growing matter which will not go away.
We remember that even in the forum we had difficulty with the flag. Of course that difficulty came from MrMcGuinness. We had to battle to get the flag put up even inside the forum building.
Others on the periphery of the pan-Nationalist front are prepared to agree on this issue. We will see today who is in agreement and who is not.
The petition can prevent the motion, if it is passed, from having any power. That is the veto that has been handed to those who want to carry out the Republican agenda in this House. It will always be put into use to maintain the Executive and those who believe that the way forward for Northern Ireland is the Republican way, which is set forth in the Agreement. That veto will continue.
The national flag flies upon the Parliament of every democratic country in the world. It also flies on the regional Parliaments, and there is evidently no objection to that. However, in Northern Ireland we find elements who are not prepared to allow the wishes of the majority to be the guiding factor. This flag issue shows the total and absolute falsehood and hypocrisy of the SDLP, Sinn Féin and their allies. They say they believe in the principle of consent, and in the consent of the majority of the people. The majority of the people in this country want this flag to fly. The majority of the people in this country have a right to have their national flag flying. It flies by decree of the Queen, who directs that this should be done. There are people here that strike not only at the flag but also at the sovereign and anything that is British. We have an anti-British campaign that wants to ensure that the national flag will not fly.
The flag also flies, as I pointed out to the Prime Minister the last time I saw him, on all sitting days of the national Parliament. It used to fly on this Building on sitting days, but now we have the first step — it will fly only on those sitting days which coincide with the named days. So we already have a dilution of the flying of the flag. Let us return to where we should never have left. Our flag, the flag of this nation, should fly on all sitting days of this Assembly. This is a regional Government of part of the United Kingdom, and this Assembly is the regional Assembly. Therefore the flag of the United Kingdom should be flown. It is puerile to argue that another flag should be placed alongside it.
The South of Ireland did not need to have any argument about this matter. When the border was drawn, 10% of the people were Protestant and, in the majority, Unionist, but they have been almost eliminated. Today only 2·5% of the population of the South are Protestant. As a result, by the elimination of the people, they eliminated any bother about which flag should fly. I did not hear from the parties opposite a loud cry: "Let both flags fly over Dublin castle". I did not hear that cry, because it is the right of the minority. Well, they have very little minority left. Perhaps when all the minority has gone they will consider that matter.
It is puerile for Members to say: "Oh, if you fly both flags, we will let you fly them". MrMcGuinness, who is absent today, and the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety do not run Northern Ireland. He may run an office in Northern Ireland, but he will not dictate to the people of Northern Ireland what the national flag is. It is not the tricolour. The majority of the people of Northern Ireland — [Interruption]
Evidently, the First Minister is going to join them. The majority of the people of Northern Ireland will not have it. It is a very dangerous thing to advocate the removal of the National flag because it is an issue that goes to the very heart of people’s faith and heritage. We are not in the Irish Republic yet.

Mr Roger Hutchinson: Does the Member agree that this is not only a matter of the flying of the Union flag but of our Britishness and everything in our culture that is British and Orange? The SDLP Members in particular, after the release of their internal document, seem to have gone from a paler shade of green to the darkest shade of green ever.
This has been portrayed by their Member from East Antrim who, on every occasion, has taken the opportunity to condemn the RUC and to tell us that the RUC turns a blind eye to the attacks on the minority community in Larne. I condemn any attack on anyone, but I also condemn the lies told about the RUC turning a blind eye to anyone being attacked in Larne, or anywhere else. I ask the Member to bring forward any evidence he may have. I ask him to speak up or shut up.

Mr Speaker: Order. I fail to see the relevance of this particular attack on another Member to the motion that is before the House. If the Member wishes to respond, since he has been particularly spoken of, he will have that right. Please continue, DrPaisley.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I am not responsible for what people say when I give way, but I think that my Friend made a fair point. When we are speaking about the Republican agenda, I welcome the fact that today in another place, where I hope to be very shortly, Her Majesty’s Opposition is going to take the attitude that the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill should not get a second reading. We are glad, because things are happening in this country and someone must put the brakes on the Republican agenda and say "So far and no further".
Why are these people offended about the Union flag? When they take their pay, are they offended about the Queen’s head on the coin, and do they say "No"? We used to have an old slogan here — although it does not match with the present coinage — that they loved the half-crown but they did not like the Crown. It is absolute hypocrisy. Do they want two sorts of money?
There was a time when they did have two sorts of money. There was a hen on some coins. It was wonderful — they were loyal to a hen. They can have their choice of animals, but as far as this nation is concerned there is one coinage — and I am glad that the Euro is doing so badly — and, not only that, there is one flag. That is the flag of this United Kingdom.
I could say many other things, but I should remark on the statement by the press that the building in which the Secretary of State holds office is owned by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. The Minister’s directive, which was not even a legal directive, caused the Secretary of State not to have a flag flying on his building. He is the man that the Executive asked to be the future adjudicator on this matter. What trust could we have in the Secretary of State to fly the Union flag? None whatsoever.
He was very careful to say, in the House of Commons, that the flag will fly while he is around. However, he is not going to be around. We know that the talk in Westminster is that the Prime Minister wants him back, as quickly as he can, to prepare for the election. When he goes, who is going to hold the Government to that pledge?
It is regrettable that we have to discuss this matter. It is an insult to our flag to be told that we have to have the flag of another nation flying beside it, a nation whose Foreign Minister tells us that there is too much Britishness in NorthernIreland and that we have to remove it. He may rub out some things on documents — his colleagues are very good at that, hence all the investigations into their financial integrity — but he will not be rubbing out the loyalty of the people to the flag of this nation and the loyalty of the people to their roots.
We are British and proud of it, and we will fly the Union flag irrespective of what motions may be put down and what action may be taken by the pan-Nationalist front. We will not be bowing the knee to the pan-Nationalist front, and we are not going to be subjected to bare flagpoles just because IRA/SinnFéin says we cannot fly the Union Jack. They have fired on the flag, they have bombed it, and they have tried to destroy it, but it will still fly in spite of them all.

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: I intend to give a measured response rather than a bombastic response.
This motion is about rights. It is about equality. It is about what the Human Rights Commission has to do to subscribe to international standards and practices that apply elsewhere. Indeed, I contend that it is not for the Assembly to decide whether or not a flag should fly. It could even be reasonably well argued that it is not for the London Government to have discretion over whether or not this flag should fly. There are international standards that apply in the flying of the flag and the recognition of the constitution, and which all, I repeat all, Mr Speaker, should subscribe to. That is why I say that this motion is about rights.
Some say in this debate that this is a concession which we, as Unionists, seek. Some say that it is a demand or a want. Indeed, some say — and here I look at the DUP — that somehow this is a cultural issue, as did Conor Murphy. This is not cultural.

A Member: Who said that?

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: Who said that? I read the article in Saturday’s ‘News Letter’ where DrPaisley wrote about the cultural rights of the British. See MervynParley for the quotation.
This is not a concession. It is not cultural. It is simply one thing: it is to do with the constitutional status of the region of NorthernIreland as part of the United Kingdom. That is what it is. In other words, when we deal with rights and equality — and this is the fundamental principle accepted by all throughout the democratic world — when we deal with parity, equality, identity, ethos, aspirations, they are all to be subscribed to in equal terms within the context of the state already being defined and the constitution already being recognised. There is nothing to say about joint sovereignty, condominium or the flying of two flags side by side, one of a nation state that is a neighbour and one that is ours. That is what this is clearly about. The Human Rights Commission — [Interruption]
I am trying to support what you are saying. I wish the DUP would keep quiet. Let us take the Human Rights Commission, this august body that is meant to define the rights that we all have to subscribe to.
The commission asks why we need a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland. It goes on to say that a Bill of Rights is needed for Northern Ireland because we have communal lines with clearly identifiable majority and minority communities — that is our problem. What rights does the commission say it must address? Remember that this is the Human Rights Commission, not I. It talks of four things: equality, education, language and communal cultural rights. I agree with all of those, since they are the rights to be addressed given the definition of the state.
The commission goes on to ask where one can find such cultural rights to be identified. It says that they can be found in the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities — namely, the Council of Europe, the home for all international standards accepted by all. That is what the Human Rights Commission says. What does that framework convention say? Let us be unambiguous. It supports rights and equality as defined by international consensus — not merely by a small-scale Assembly in a region of the United Kingdom. Let me make it clear that we are subject to international consensus. It also means cultural, linguistic, educational and religious rights of equality. Article 20 of the framework convention is unambiguously clear in stating — and I end on this point — that there is a fundamental principle upon which all other rights are to be based, and it is something that is supported by every international expert in human rights. Majorities and minorities should respect national law and the constitution, which means respecting the constitutional position of Northern Ireland as demonstrated by the flag.

Dr Sean Farren: The heat under Members’ collars, clerical and lay, demonstrates the depth of feeling already generated on this, as we might expect, contentious issue. Fortunately, we seem to be leaving the fields of conflict which have scarred the face of our countryside and, worse, have seen immense tragedy in our communities. It seems the flags which led people onto those fields of conflict remain a cause of dissension. If we do not display the maturity and sense of responsibility necessary to remove this dissension, the very divisions that the Good Friday Agreement intended to remove will persist and fester.
I wish to reflect for a moment on the significance of flags in order to help our deliberations in as positive a way as possible. For me, one flag, the Irish tricolour, represents in its green, white and orange colours a very noble aspiration — that of peace, reconciliation and unity through agreement between the main political traditions of this island. However, it is because of what that flag represents that I deplore, and have always deplored, its staining with the blood of people from either tradition. I have deplored and condemned — and my party has done likewise — the activities of those who, in the name of the aspiration that that flag represents, have caused that blood to be spilt. I equally deplore abuses of the flag, evident when it is used to antagonise others, most especially to antagonise those with whom the peace, reconciliation, agreement and unity it represents are intended to be achieved.
As to the Union flag, I must admit that it evokes no warmth in me at all, but as the tricolour evokes in me very positive sentiments, I recognise that the Union flag must evoke positive feelings in those on the other side of the Chamber. However, I have witnessed so many incidents and have learnt of many others where it has been used to antagonise, to taunt, and to express a sense of dominance over those in the community that I and my Colleagues represent. I cannot but question the motives of those who are speaking in favour of its display here today. Such abuses are very far from the mere expression of the status of Northern Ireland, as many protesting in favour of its display claim. Indeed, many making this claim are often to be found among those responsible for its misuse.
As a Minister I have not issued instructions regarding the display of the Union flag, or of any other flag, at my Department’s buildings. Current practice will therefore persist until we arrive at an agreed common position.
As the Good Friday Agreement urges, I fully support the recommendation that we approach this issue with sensitivity and seek to develop a common understanding and code of conduct for the display of flags and emblems by our new institutions. In doing so I believe that we should strive to arrive at a situation where we have an agreed set of common emblems and flags to represent the institutions agreed to in the Good Friday Agreement. For these reasons members of my party and others have signed a Petition of Concern to have this issue addressed by the Assembly to enable us to pursue agreement on this very contentious matter. In doing so, I look forward to the assistance that the Human Rights Commission and others may want to afford us as we seek such agreement.

Mr Speaker: To avoid confusion, may I draw attention to the fact that in a time-limited debate, intervention times come out of the time allocated to Members.

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. This motion coming from the DUP is not about flags. It is not even about respect for or allegiance to a flag. I think that the Member who moved the motion spoke about running. In fact, the motion is about a party running for its life in advance of progress and change — change that recognises that the only way forward for these six counties of this little island is, in the words of the Good Friday Agreement,
"to affirm our commitment to mutual respect, civil rights and religious liberties."
Now, I know that it is very difficult for the majority of those elected to the Assembly to affirm respect for a party which has publicly threatened to wreck the Assembly and to make it unworkable, a party whose members have consistently used, or should I say abused, their position as elected representatives to deny everyone else their right to respect, to civil rights and even to religious liberty. [Laughter]
They can laugh, but the history of their party is steeped in it.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Ms Mary Nelis: I do not propose to go into the history of the DUP or its party leader whose rise to fame we all know about. His career and the careers of his party members were carved out by haranguing and abusing those who disagreed with them. As well as the British Queen’s — [Interruption] Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member will resume her seat. I intervene at this point, as I have done previously, to direct that Members who stray off the motion and address the question of another Member would be advised not to do so.

Mr Pat McNamee: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am unable to hear my Colleague even though I am sitting beside her.

Mr Speaker: That is why I have called for order. Please continue, Mrs Nelis.

Ms Mary Nelis: We have seen this party haranguing church leaders. They were at it again last night, haranguing President Mary McAleese and the newly elected moderator of the Presbyterian Church, Dr Trevor Morrow. Everything they do or say is about division, whether it be about flying flags or rotating Ministers. That is all they are capable of — promoting sectarianism and fomenting civil strife. Do not let this motion fool anyone. Even if the Reverend party leader wraps himself in the Union Jack and flies it from the top of Westminster, it is not going to stop the change which the Good Friday Agreement and 84% of the people of this island, North and South, clearly spelt out. It is called equality. Do they know what that means? Well, I will tell them, for they do not know. It means that the flag I recognise and uphold, which represents my political allegiance on this island of Ireland and which, in its origins, symbolises the unity of orange and green traditions, is entitled to be flown alongside the Union Jack on all buildings. That is called parity of esteem and it means that where British symbols are used in public life, equivalent Irish symbols must be given equal prominence.
All who signed up to the Good Friday Agreement acknowledge the need for sensitivity in the use of symbols and emblems for public purposes, and the need to use symbols and emblems in a manner which promotes mutual respect and human rights, rather than division. In circumstances where it is not possible to fly both flags, none should be flown. It is the right of all of the people on this island that we create and uphold the principle of an equal or neutral working environment central to parity of esteem but also — and I remind the proposer of this motion — enshrined in law.
This issue is not about flags. This issue, and the one that we should be debating, are whether we can, through the unique formula which is the Good Friday Agreement, involve ourselves in the political process which will address the issues of rights, safeguards and equality of opportunity. We are back again in this Assembly, and we have another chance to further develop the peace process. This motion is what we have come to expect. [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order. If Members keep interrupting, and I have to intervene on points of order, the time does not come out of the Member’s time — it merely prolongs it.

Rev William McCrea: The clock shows 5.16.

Mr Speaker: I am aware of what the clock shows. If the Member had been listening he would have appreciated what I was saying, which was that when Members require the Speaker to intervene on a point of order, that does not come out of the Member’s time.

Rev William McCrea: The clock has stopped.

Mr Speaker: Yes, of course the clock has stopped. It is meant to stop. The clock has stopped because the Speaker was intervening at that point. It did not stop when the Speaker intervened at the earlier point, and he intervened because of the kerfuffle being caused in that Member’s corner.
I ask Mrs Nelis to bring her remarks to a close.

Ms Mary Nelis: A Chathaoirligh, this motion is what we have come to expect from the "No, nay, never, up-the-pole" party. We have more important matters to deal with in this Assembly so let us get on with it. I oppose the motion.

Mr Danny Kennedy: In her concluding remarks Mrs Nelis used the expression "up the pole". Is that parliamentary language?

Mr Speaker: It appears to be relevant to flags, which is the subject of the motion.

Mr David Ford: Whilst I do not agree with the Republicans in their attitude to the flying of flags in Northern Ireland, my party rejects the way in which today’s motion seeks to further politicise the use of the Union flag. That is why we sought to bring forward a reasoned amendment which would have removed the misuse of the Union flag on every sitting day, while leaving the current practice for Government buildings on designated flag days. That is also why we suggested and signed the Petition of Concern. It was not a pan-Nationalist front, MrWilson.
There are a number of reasons why people fly flags. A flag can be used as an expression of identity. In that context, if I wish to fly one flag and my neighbour wishes to fly a different flag on her property, that is the right of each of us, subject only to our keeping the peace. If one of my neighbours wishes to put up a Union flag for the Queen’s birthday, another wishes to fly StPatrick’s cross on 17March, and I want to put up a red dragon every time there is a rugby match in the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff, that is our right. We should have — [Interruption] Was that a point of order?

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: Point of information, Mr Speaker.

Mr David Ford: No. I am not giving way for anybody. I have only five minutes.
With the exception of the emblems of illegal organisations, we each should tolerate the other, and, in turn, we should have our wishes tolerated. A flag can be flown also as a symbol of sovereignty. That is the difference between a private house, an Orange hall, or a GAA club, and a Government building. A flag on a Government building can only be a statement of sovereignty. That is why I cannot see any possibility of the tricolour’s being flown alongside the Union flag on any Government building, because it does not fit with the principle of consent, and it seems to me the logic of the SinnFéin position is that the Union flag should now fly over Rathgael House in Bangor in perpetuity. If they wish the tricolour to fly alongside the Union flag as a recognition of one section of this community, then should there be any possible constitutional change, they must accept that the Union flag should fly alongside the tricolour forever as a recognition of the identity of another section of the community.
The third reason for flying flags in Northern Ireland is possibly the most important, and that is to get one over on the "other side". That is the mentality that nails flags up every available telegraph pole. That is done to stake out territory and tell people they are not welcome. The only thing that can be said in its favour is that, by and large, Republicans do not fly their flag upside down.
Today’s motion represents a test of the commitment of the different parties to the mutual respect and tolerance I spoke of — the respect and tolerance which is enshrined in the agreement. I believe that the UUP and the PUP should actually oppose the provocative use of their national flag, the Union flag. While the proposal to fly the Union flag on this building on every sitting day is not quite the same as waving it in the streets, or nailing it up telegraph poles, it seems to me that the effect is the same. Possibly the intent is the same. It is to seek forcibly to remind those who are offended by it that they are in a minority. It is to tell them they are not welcome.
Many Unionists, indeed many supporters of my party, view the Union flag, not as something with which to taunt people, which seems to be the aim of many people in this Chamber, but as a dignified statement of their beliefs and values. As someone who is not a Unionist but who lost an uncle in the fight against fascism sixty years ago, I know exactly how deep those feelings run, and how sincere they can be. Those people have a right to see their symbols treated with respect by everybody, not treated as cheap political rags and misused by some.
Of course, sovereignty in the context in which we now live is neither absolute nor indivisible. Alliance recognises that NorthernIreland is part of a decentralising British Isles. To adopt MrsThatcher’s famous dictum, it is actually now no longer possible to be exactly as British as those in Finchley, whether you live in Fishguard, Finvoy or Fortwilliam, and, indeed, the way the European Union is now evolving into a federal Europe, it is possible that you will soon be almost as British whether you live in Frankfurt or Fuengirola.
Alliance wishes to see the development of common shared symbols which can unite, not divide, our people. In the absence of any agreement on new symbols, maintenance of the status quo is the best approach at this time. We reject the suggestions that the Union flag and the tricolour should be flown together. We see this as the route to an apartheid society, one which says that there are two sections which are equal, and they — like George Orwell’s pigs — are rather more equal than every other section.
We want to build a society that is united but diverse. We need shared common symbols. The Assembly’s flax plant is perhaps the first example. The European flag should also be considered since it can be seen as a focus of unity rather than division. In the absence of any agreement on a way forward, we should maintain the status quo and reject the motion.

Mr Norman Boyd: I support the motion. It is scandalous that Sinn Féin/IRA Ministers refuse to fly the Union flag over Government buildings. I have here a list of days on which the Union flag must be flown under well-established practices. The Sinn Féin Ministers’ actions are deliberately provocative and appalling. This is an attack on Northern Ireland’s position within the United Kingdom. These so-called Ministers have acted beyond their authority and must be condemned utterly by the House. They have insulted the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland. At a time of deep crisis for the National Health Service and education, the Sinn Féin Ministers are more interested in cheap political stunts such as preventing the flying of our country’s flag than in the wellbeing of the people of Northern Ireland. Recently, someone in need of a hospital operation had to make way for another so-called kneecapping victim. The Sinn Féin Health, Social Services and Public Safety Minister is strangely silent on that issue.
The fact that Sinn Féin Ministers in this fundamentally flawed Executive can refuse to fly our country’s flag demonstrates that the Belfast Agreement offers nothing to Unionists, in spite of the utterances of David Trimble and some UUP Members that it copper-fastens the Union. If the prevention of the flying of the flag on Castle Buildings — a Government building — represents copper-fastening the Union, what would the UUP see as weakening the Union? I have here a statement issued by the Ulster Unionist Party on 22 May 2000:
"Thanks to our negotiating team, only the Union flag will be flown from Government buildings, and the proud name of the RUC will be preserved … Unlike our opponents, who talk a lot but never deliver, we actually managed to negotiate significant and tangible concessions from the Government."
That was written by David Trimble. I ask him if the flying of the Union flag is a concession.
The SDLP says that there should be mutual respect. We have had 30years of bombs and bullets. Where was the mutual respect for the Unionist community in that? We hear from Nationalists about Union flags and red, white and blue kerbstones. What about Republican triumphalism on the Garvaghy Road, the Ormeau Road and many other areas where we see tricolours and green, white and gold kerbstones? The Government’s neutrality has created the ludicrous situation where if Nationalists object to the Union flag, under the Belfast Agreement it can no longer be flown on Government buildings.
The Alliance Party is now part of the pan-Nationalist front which today has signed a petition to prevent us from voting that the Union flag must be flown. The Union flag is flown permanently at Westminster, except during a royal visit when the royal standard is flown. It is flown permanently on the building used by the Welsh Assembly. It is also flown on occasion on the Scottish Parliament’s buildings and Government offices.
The Union flag, and only the Union flag, should be flown permanently on Parliament Buildings and on all Government buildings to bring us in line with the rest of the United Kingdom. It is scandalous for a Northern Ireland Office spokesman to say that this is a matter for the parties to agree among themselves. That attitude is totally unacceptable. I call for a full investigation by the House into the comments made by faceless civil servants in the Northern Ireland Office. They must be taken to task over that unacceptable attitude.
Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom, yet our British culture and identity continue to be attacked. The list is endless: parades, the oath of allegiance, the RUC, portraits of Her Majesty. Sinn Féin/IRA even blocked the Duchess of Abercorn from visiting St Mary’s Primary School in Pomeroy, County Tyrone to promote a cross-community writing competition.
The actions of Sinn Féin/IRA Ministers have been grossly offensive to all Unionists, whether they voted "Yes" or "No". They confirm that the Belfast Agreement is fundamentally flawed. It is a charter of deceit, and those who have been deceived are the misguided pro-Agreement Unionists who foolishly trusted the Belfast Agreement. They thought the agreement would safeguard their British identity in the face of aggressive Irish Republicanism, which is determined to impose Irishness on British people.
This debate is about more than flags. It goes to the heart of the Belfast Agreement. That agreement was sold to Unionist and Nationalist voters with entirely different arguments. For Unionists, the agreement was supposed to secure their British citizenship after thirty years of Republican terrorism. For Nationalists, it was to create a transitional arrangement in which Unionism gave ground and of which a united Ireland would be the inevitable outcome.
The removal of the Union flag from Government buildings by Sinn Féin/IRA is clear evidence of the Republican movement’s hatred of all things British. Just when we are commemorating the sixtieth anniversary of Dunkirk, where many lives were lost for freedom and democracy, and when, in a few weeks, on 1July, we will remembering those brave Ulstermen who lost their lives at the Battle of the Somme fighting under the Union flag, Sinn Féin/IRA are insulting their memories and what they died for. [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Norman Boyd: Despite these ongoing attacks by the pan-Nationalist front on British culture and identity, I call on all Unionists to fly the Union flag on their homes as a clear statement of British identity.

Mr Fraser Agnew: The symbolic nature of flags can be traced back to ancient times. They have been used to lead armies to victory, and to crown man’s greatest achievements — whether landing on the moon or conquering a mountain peak. They have been used to claim ownership of vast territories and, of course, they have been used in Northern Ireland, as has already been mentioned, to mark out territory.
Also, the Romans used flags to identify their legions on the battlefield. There has been much talk recently about the symbols of the RUC, but flags, particularly the Union flag, can stir up emotions that few other symbols can. Since the passage of the Act of Union in 1800, the cross of StPatrick that so many people want to remember —

Mr Pat McNamee: rose.

Mr Speaker: Is this a point of order?

Mr Fraser Agnew: I will not give way.
Since the passage of the Act of Union in 1800 the cross of StPatrick has been part of the Union flag, symbolising the unity of the kingdom. It is perhaps ironic that the current problem with the Union flag comes at a time when the flag should be flown over Government buildings to celebrate the Queen’s coronation in 1953. The Ulster flag, with its six-pointed star — one for each county in Northern Ireland — and its crown, was created in 1953 for the Queen’s coronation. It was a civil flag for Northern Ireland, but its official status was abolished when the Northern Ireland Parliament was closed down in 1973. Thereafter, the Union flag was made the official flag in Northern Ireland. That is a fact.
The Flags and Emblems (Display) Act 1954 outlawed the display of a flag likely to cause a breach of the peace — clearly meaning the Irish tricolour — and made it an offence to interfere with the display of the Union flag. That Act appears to have been repealed in the United Kingdom during the 1980s.
Although the Union flag has never been officially adopted by law as the national flag of the United Kingdom, it has become so by usage — and that is acceptable in the strange system that we call the British constitution. The Government stated that it is the correct flag for use by British citizens. The situation is slightly different at sea, as the Government has reserved the Union flag for specific military purposes. In fact, it should only be called the Union Jack by the Royal Navy.
Interestingly, the Flag Institute has published the draft of a Flag Act that would confirm in law the Union flag’s status as our national flag. It also lays down some specifications and a usage code that some Members would be quite happy to see, and that has already been mentioned. The institute is lobbying to have the document put before Parliament in time for the bicentenary of the United Kingdom and the current Union flag in 2001. On 26May PeterMandelson said that those who attacked the agreement played on the fears that it would diminish their identity and undermine their tradition. He claimed that it did no such thing, and that it cherished diversity, securing British identity while recognising and respecting Nationalists and Republicans who do not share that identity.
I suggest that one of the most potent symbols of our Britishness is the Union flag, and if any attempts are made to diminish it, to discredit it, or to take it down, then that is taking away from the consensus part of the so-called Belfast Agreement. I would have thought that the consent principle was recognising the rights of the majority of the people in Northern Ireland who wanted to retain their British citizenship.
But, at a stroke, when one starts pulling down the Union flag one is taking away, in a very symbolic way, the essence of that consent principle — the right of the people to determine their future under the flag of the British Crown.
The ‘Belfast Telegraph’ of 26 May said of the agreement:
"The reality is that it seeks to establish a new dispensation based on consensus, equality and mutual respect."
Where are the consensus, equality and mutual respect when the Union flag is not acceptable? We demand from all Members a basic civility towards the flag and symbols which reflect the fact that they are living in, and indeed some are governing, a part of the United Kingdom.

Mr David Ervine: I am minded of those who are determined to make me respectable in a world that is not respectable. I have been listening to guffaws and hee-haws all around me on what is an extremely serious and difficult subject. Many within the Nationalist community hear those guffaws and hee-haws, and yesterday they witnessed, as one Member said, an opportunity to destroy or cause serious wounding to that "fundamentally flawed Executive" as he lifted his papers and left. It was by leave of the Assembly that they could have inflicted serious damage and refused to do so.
So when the Nationalist community interprets from guffaws and hee-haws the real truth that the huffers and the puffers have no intention of pulling the house down, they should not misunderstand that as being the view and the will and the attitude of the people in our society.
Flags, as has already been said, give rise to serious concern. People fight all over the world about them. We would have fought over them, and probably did in many ways, prior to Good Friday, April 1998. But when we look at the issue of the Union flag being flown on public buildings in our society we should be minded that this is not pre-1998 — it is post-1998.
As a politician — and some would say that I am still an amateur one — I have represented a group of people whom many here may not like, and even the Members to my left may not like them. Those people comprised the Combined Loyalist Military Command. They predicated a ceasefire on six specific principles. One of those principles was that there was to be no diminution of the Britishness of Northern Ireland, provided, of course, that such was by the will of the people. Well, the Britishness of Northern Ireland has been copper-fastened as the will of the people.
Whether we like it or not, we once heard GerryAdams talk about embracing his Protestant brothers and sisters. I suppose the outworking of the Good Friday Agreement is that he accepted that he would have to embrace his British brothers and sisters.
Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, and Dermot Nesbitt is absolutely correct when he divorces the flying of the flag on a public building from an expression of culture. It is not an expression of culture; it is a specific constitutional statement that reflects the terms of the Good Friday Agreement on Northern Ireland’s constitutional position.
There is in many ways a foolishness about the debate and about the Petition of Concern. There is a foolishness abroad that makes us forget that in 1966 a flag had to be removed from the offices of Sinn Féin — I might once have described it as the IRA, and then it became the Official IRA. There was a demand for that flag to be removed using the public order legislation, and, of course, those people who were responsible for that are sitting not very far away from me.
That flag, by the way, was not removed by the state. I know the identity of the person who did it, but, of course, I have to be careful as there is no statute of limitations in Northern Ireland. I know the person who broke the window and took the flag out at the behest of those who were bellicose ranters demanding that either the state do it, or they would. Then that flag was replaced by hundreds of flags.
Surely that is the lesson. It seems quite ludicrous that the flag that was taken was the flag of the Irish Republic: the tricolour. Those people who say that the tricolour is their flag are creating exactly the same difficulties when they demand that the Union flag does not fly.
They are creating a head of steam, they are creating a sense of anger and bitterness. They are reminding us of the 72 days in which we had an Executive and in which we had Carrickmore and Pomeroy. We had the circumstances of the debacle of an attempt, quite legitimate under the Good Friday Agreement, to extradite Angelo Fusco. We had all of that in-your-face pathetic politics by the Republican movement outside this Building and, indeed, some not very sensible things inside this Building. If it is to be delivered to the people of NorthernIreland — including the Combined Loyalist Military Command — and accepted by Unionists, the expression of Irishness contained in the Good Friday Agreement has to be dealt with on a proactive basis. This expression of Irishness would appear to mean, as far as the Nationalist representatives are concerned, the diminution of the Unionist position in NorthernIreland.

Ms Jane Morrice: We in the Women’s Coalition are very aware of the highly sensitive nature of this debate. We do not approach it lightly. On the contrary, we understand that the issue of flags, emblems and symbols of our culture, our political aspiration or our constitutional status is a fundamental question which lies at the very core of the new arrangements we are putting in place. It is exactly because this issue is important that we believe it should be the subject of serious studied debate over time and not of a simple show of hands on the floor of the Assembly or a 30-second sound bite to satisfy a media hungry for controversy. In the House of Commons last month the Secretary of State said the issue of flags was best resolved by the NorthernIreland Executive, and we agree. In the event of a dispute the Secretary of State has the power to set the regulations if
"the issue is becoming a palpable source of division among its Members".
We believe this should provide the space necessary for us to work our way into this unique fledgling democracy and give us time to build the ground we have in common, rather than that which divides us.
The Good Friday Agreement clearly recognises the fact that, while the sovereignty of the UnitedKingdom is maintained through the will of the majority of the electorate in NorthernIreland, such sovereignty will be exercised in the context of the
"just and equal treatment of the identity, ethos and aspirations of both communities".
In other words, the expression of sovereignty should be managed in such a way that it is both sensitive and sympathetic to those who do not hold similar aspirations. Why, for example, do we insist that symbols automatically follow sovereignty? Do we lack the confidence to know who we are without having to rub each other’s noses in it? This is not about the reduction of Britishness or Irishness; it is about learning to live together. This may not be a marriage, but it is a cohabitation of sorts. Everyone knows that when you live together in partnership, you have to make compromises. If one partner wants to paint the front of the house one colour and the other partner wants to paint the front of the house another colour, the best and only way to achieve harmony is either not to paint the house at all or to choose a colour which is neutral and which is acceptable, not just to both but to all who live in that house.
This Assembly is the new home of our Government.

Mr Peter Weir: Will the Member take a point of information?

Ms Jane Morrice: No.
We have got to look at all the options available to us. Should we, for example, avoid flying the official flag and make a neutral working environment in line with the fair employment legislation, or should we agree symbols that reflect a shared identity?
We managed to agree the flax flowers as the symbol of the Assembly without controversy, and they are accepted by all. Alternatively, if we truly want to reflect our status, why should we not be proud to fly the European flag on every public building?
This is just the second week of our new Government, and we have much to do. I make this point with much sincerity: our farmers, who gathered here in their thousands asking for our help, did not stop to check if the Union flag was flying before they marched up these steps. Our textile workers and our young people are more concerned about staying out of the dole office than about whether a flag, or which one, is flying above it. We are here to make life better for them and for others in our community, and that is what we intend to do.

Rev William McCrea: The contributions today are rather interesting. I am sad that MrErvine is away because I noticed that he was clearly smarting from the skilful planning of the DUP in the Assembly yesterday — he could not hide his disgust and his disappointment that we allowed the finances to go on. He wanted us to hurt the ordinary people, to rob money from the farmers and to stop the operations for patients. It would have given him pleasure to have stopped the schools for the children. We intend, as a party, to make the Executive bite the dust, not the ordinary, decent, law-abiding people of this country.
What we are reaping today are the fruits of the Belfast Agreement. We are seeing concession after concession. The pan-Nationalist front has its begging bowl out more and more, and it is getting cheekier.
We heard from a Member from Londonderry. I cannot understand why she would be angry about the Union flag. Did her husband not fight under the Union flag? Was he not glad, as a member of the Ulster Defence Regiment, to fight under the Union flag and be a part of the country?
Perhaps because of the embarrassment of her past, she is trying to impress her new credentials upon those whom she now wants to embrace her. It ill becomes people to try to pretend something rather than face the realities.
The sad reality is that we are having an anti-British campaign, not only from without but from within the Executive. And who put them in the Executive? Members of the Ulster Unionist Party, as part of the Belfast Agreement, voted them in — and put them back in just recently —ensuring that Martin would be the head of education and Barbara Brown would be head of health, both running Departments.
Interestingly enough, while they condemn Britishness, it was their two Departments that received more money from the British exchequer recently. It was education and health that got the injection of money from the British exchequer. Of course, who could better hold out their begging bowls than Republicans — that is how they have lived and practised all their years.
It seems to be politically correct today not to put up a photograph of Her Majesty the Queen — that is not allowed. You cannot walk freely down Her Majesty’s highway; you cannot fly the flag of your country; you cannot take an oath of allegiance to the Queen. On and on the concessions go, and it is rather empty for Members of the Ulster Unionist Party to bleat empty phrases of horror when it comes to this issue because this is a part of their agreement — they had the power to stop it.
The agreement was sold on falsehood. There were three principles. First of all we were told the consent principle had been settled, and settled forever. All those who signed up to the agreement had signed up to the principle of consent; they had accepted, acknowledged and embraced the fact that NorthernIreland was a part of the UnitedKingdom. What utter rubbish. The people were sold a lie, and we are reaping the harvest of that lie.
Secondly, there was the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The name and the badge were solved in the piece of paper that Mr Taylor held in his pocket. Yet in a meeting with MrIngram — and my party leader was there — the Minister said that the name of the gallant RUC would not appear in the long or short title of the Bill coming before Parliament today.
In fact MrIngram said the issue was spurious. That was his answer. That is a second principle, a second lie that was sold to the Unionist population.
The third was about the flag. We were told that the Hillsborough Agreement had settled this issue. The reality is that the IRA has tried to take down the Union flag of this country with their bombs and their bullets. Thank God the people of Ulster are made of better stuff, for they have withstood the bombs and the bullets of terrorism. If we were able to withstand all that, we certainly are not going to allow anyone to take down our country’s flag.
We are faced with the harvest of the Belfast Agreement. Sadly, the only flag that the Ulster Unionists have unfurled in the negotiations is the white flag of surrender to the Republican/Nationalist agenda. The Unionist population are now reaping the harvest of such ill-informed negotiations. We the Ulster Democratic Unionist Party, believe that the flag should be flown over this Building on every day the Assembly is sitting and in every Government building.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: This motion is to do with a very important issue. It can be separated into two parts. The first concerns the Union flag’s being flown over Executive buildings, and the second being its flown on Parliament Buildings on all sitting days. I agree with both points but will address them separately.
We should refer to the agreement made on Good Friday, as it is quite clear on constitutional issues. Paragraph 1(i) of this section states that the British and Irish Governments will
"recognise the legitimacy of whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland with regard to its status".
In paragraph 1(iii) the participants endorse their commitment to acknowledge that
"the present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, freely exercised and legitimate, is to maintain the Union and, accordingly, that Northern Ireland’s status as part of the United Kingdom reflects and relies upon that wish."
That is the consent principle. To reinforce this and back it up the Irish Government altered articles 2 and 3 to remove their legal claim under constitutional imperative. It is, therefore, for the people of Northern Ireland to determine the constitutional status of Northern Ireland, an issue that has separated us for 80 or 90 years. It is quite clear what that wish is; Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom because the people of Northern Ireland so determine, and for no other reason. That is where we are. Northern Ireland is part of the sovereign United Kingdom — part of the British state — and the constitutional symbol, not the cultural symbol, of that state is the Union flag.
In the United Kingdom as a whole the Union flag is flown on designated Government buildings on designated days. That is the constitutional symbol; it is a legitimate expression of the constitutional position of the United Kingdom as a whole and a legitimate expression of the constitutional position of Northern Ireland in particular.
Sinn Féin has failed to accept and recognise that and to deny the agreement that is at the root of this. If Sinn Féin and Nationalists are genuine about wanting the tricolour to fly over this building, there is only one way that could be done, and that would be to persuade the people of Northern Ireland to vote Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom and into a united Ireland. The reason they are denying the consent principle is that they now understand that that is a possibility so remote as to be politically unachievable, certainly in their lifetimes. If they thought there was any possibility of achieving that within a set period — Gerry Adams talked about 15years — if they had some form of stepping stone, then they would be reinforcing the consent principle. The dangerous aspect is that if they do not accept the consent principle, why should Unionists? If they ever achieved a majority, are we supposed to accept that? Why should we accept it when they do not? They understand this, but they deny it, because they know that the chances of the people of Northern Ireland voting Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom and into a united Ireland are so remote as to be unlikely to occur within the lifetime of any of us here.
The Union flag is flown as a constitutional symbol. Within the agreement we have said that symbols will be used sensitively. You talk about parity of esteem. Parity of esteem means equal respect—but it does not mean recognition. There is a difference between respect and recognition.
If we are serious about the agreement, and if we are serious about this consent principle that is the fundamental cornerstone of the agreement, then there should be no problem with anyone operating what has been a custom and a practice. There is no legal basis for flying the flag, and it does not fly by royal prerogative. It is flown throughout the United Kingdom by custom and practice. If SinnFéin and Republicans are determined to deny this, then they are denying the fundamental cornerstone of the agreement and they are denying the agreement itself.
I believe that Unionism and Unionists will take that as a serious —

Mr Speaker: Order. Your time is up.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: Thank you. I will wind up.

Mr Speaker: No, your time is up.

Mr John Dallat: When Mr McCrea rose sporting his yellow tie I thought, for one lovely moment, he was half way there. However, he began to talk about begging bowls. Earlier his party leader talked about coins. Perhaps at the end of this debate we should have a silent collection. That might solve the problem.
I was most impressed by yesterday’s business in this Chamber when all parties present demonstrated that they could, if they wished deliver normality and a future that offers a stable and peaceful way ahead. I have no doubt about that.
It seems an awful pity that, only one day later, we are plunged back into a fruitless debate about flags. We should learn from past experiences that these issues are divisive and pointless until we reach agreement. Indeed, this motion can serve no purpose because the Assembly has no power to direct Ministers.
Over the past 30 years, flags have played a big part in marking out territory, denoting difference, and heightening tensions. There are people in this House who are past masters at using flags for their own narrow, sectarian motives. On no occasion can I recall flags being used as a vehicle for reconciliation. DavidErvine referred to one of the most notorious incidents involving flags, which took place in Divis Street 34 years ago when the presence of a tricolour caused so much offence to DrPaisley that the Unionist Government sent the RUC to fetch it. The rest is history, but for those who are too young to remember, shortly afterwards loyalists murdered two Catholics — JohnPatrickScullion and PeterWard. MatildaGould, a Protestant, also died a short time later. Today 34 years later — with more than 3,500 people dead — DrPaisley is still obsessed with flags, forgetting nothing, and learning nothing, from the horrors of the past.
In a divided society it is inevitable that flags serve no purpose other than to perpetuate division, fear and suspicion. Whether those flags are on Government buildings, nailed to telegraph poles, or painted on kerb stones, they serve only one purpose; to further sectarianism and polarisation. They are not there out of respect.
Surely there is enough intelligence in this House — I believe that there is — to base our decisions on the experience of the past in relation to flags. We do not have to repeat DivisStreet, or write another volume of ‘Lost Lives’. Surely, we must know that it is much better to discover the common ground that unites us, rather than to dwell on the issues which serve only to cause fear, mistrust, and perhaps even a return to the past.
We only live on this planet for a short time, far too short to see the bigger picture. Perhaps in the future there will be common ground that will enable progress on this issue. In such circumstances would it not be nice if the present generation was written into history as having laid the foundation stones for development? Then, a future generation could respect the flag that evolves out of the present peace process; and the work of this Assembly. The flag would be put up at dawn, and taken down at dusk. It would be respected by all, and it would be part of a heritage of which all our people could be proud.
In the meantime, it is best to concentrate on the present and continue building the foundation stones of trust and reconciliation. It would be better perhaps to leave it to future generations, when they have the experience of time and the opportunity to see the bigger picture, to decide the format of the piece of cloth that flutters from the flagpoles. As long as it causes division, a flag is only a piece of cloth.
Flags should be capable of being honoured and respected by all, and not used as floorcloths by people who carve their political existence out of division and bitterness. When we accept that fact and begin the serious business of reaching agreement based on consent, then we will be singing from the same hymn sheet and perhaps flying flags from the same flagpoles. In the meantime, the SDLP has no proposals for flying the tricolour on the Queen’s birthday. That would cause even more confusion and create even more theme parks of flags denoting difference and division.

Mr John Kelly: A Chathaoirligh. I have a sense of déja vu — indeed, a sense of antediluvian déja vu — about this morning’s motion. David Ervine and John Dallat were right. It was in 1964 that the same Ian Paisley summed up to reporters his attitude to the tricolour:
"I don’t accept that any area in Ulster is Republican, and I don’t want to see the tricolour flying here. I intend to see that the Union Jack flies everywhere and that it keeps flying."
Those comments go to the very heart of the crisis that has bedevilled this society and this state since its inception.
The occasion for those remarks, as I am sure Dr Paisley will recall, was a flag flying in a shop window in Divis Street. The flag was so obscure that you had to stop at the shop window to see it. Yet Ian Paisley gathered a mob, Unionism succumbed to his threats, and the flag was taken from the window. Four days and four nights of bloody riots ensued in which hundreds of men, women and children were injured, some seriously. It was a shameful climbdown by the then Government in Stormont, and if Unionism wants to look to the genesis of the past 30 years, they might examine what happened in Divis Street in 1964. Indeed, the ‘Irish Times’ editorial of 5October of that year opined
"The tricolour, however, did not appear to worry the authorities overmuch; they showed restraint and good sense. Then came a man in black, a man of God, bringing not peace, but the sword."
It was the sword that was used metaphorically and in other ways to bedevil this society.
This issue is not about flags or the flying of flags. It is not about the flying of a flag as a symbol of cultural identity or as a symbol of Britishness. It is for Nationalists a denial of their right to their identity in the society in which they live. If 100 out of 100 people living in this society were Unionists there would be no problem about the flying of the flag. However, that is not the political reality which exists in this society where 50% of the people are Nationalists and where the majority of school-going people of this part of Ireland are Nationalist/Republican.
It is not about the flying of a flag. It is not about the flying of a flag to remind us of our Britishness. Those who view Unionism as having rights must accept that Nationalists also have rights. They must acknowledge that the rights of Unionists have responsibilities to the rights of Nationalists. Unionists have to come to terms with a number of facts contrary to their belief that the North is like any other part of the United Kingdom. The Good Friday Agreement is evidence and proof that it is not.
Consent is a two-way street. That means that our consent is of equal validity and has equal integrity. Is the Unionist position, as seen in the spirit and letter of this motion, to remain the same — that the exercise of power by anybody other than themselves is a concession and not a right? Is power-sharing to fail because DUP Unionism, allied with anti-agreement UUP Unionism, views the exercise of power by Nationalists as unacceptable? Is the price of the Good Friday Agreement for Unionists not that the democratic deficit, which excluded Nationalists from expressing their culture, religion and social identity, is to be remedied?
12.00
Power-sharing failed in the past because Unionism, and particularly Unionism as exemplified by today’s DUP motion, viewed the exercise of power by Nationalists, with all the political implications that that entailed, as a concession and not a right. This motion goes further by making the exercise of power by Nationalists conditional on them emasculating the expressions of their identity.

Mr Nigel Dodds: First, the fact that we have to debate and argue about whether the national flag should be flown on Government buildings in NorthernIreland is an indictment of the situation into which the Belfast Agreement has brought this part of the UnitedKingdom.
We are told that the Belfast Agreement strengthens the Union and the position of Unionists. It is ironic that if the Ulster Unionist Council had not reinstated the Belfast Agreement a few days ago the national flag would have flown on Government buildings last Friday. The reality is that, as a direct result of that vote to proceed with the agreement, the national flag has been torn down at the behest of two Sinn Féin/IRA Ministers.
We were told, as part of the package to persuade and con people, that members of the UUC should vote in favour of the motion, and that a number of issues had been dealt with. We were told that the decommissioning issue had been dealt with. Of course, we know that IRA/Sinn Féin has been admitted back into Government positions without handing over one piece of illegal weaponry and without being required at any time in the future to hand over such weaponry. We also know that there has been no safeguard whatsoever regarding the preservation of the name of the RUC or in relation to some of the most fundamentally obnoxious parts of the Patten report. Those obnoxious parts will proceed. The RUC’s name will be taken away, and the assurances given by MrTaylor and others amount to nothing.
What assurance and resolution were we told would ensure the issue of flags was sorted out? It was that that power would be given to the Secretary of State — not in legislation to require the flying of the national flag, which is what should have happened, but to whoever he or she might be at any time.
It is ironic that one of the reasons MrTrimble and others argued we should proceed with devolution, the Belfast Agreement, and letting IRA/Sinn Féin back into Government, was in order to take power out of the hands of the British Government — since that was joint rule, and since Mandelson could not be trusted. Yet they have handed power over the flying of the national flag to PeterMandelson. That is some assurance and some logic.
The reality, of course, is that the national flag has been torn down. It is not a symbol of party politics, or of a particular group or section. It is the national flag. I listened with incredulity to the talk from the other side of the House about looking to the future and equality. Most of their speeches have comprised looking back to the past over 35years and blaming people for instigating the troubles. I listened to Sinn Féin/IRA’s talk of equality and respect — was that what the murder campaign for 30years was about? Is that why they tried to murder my Colleague and I? Was that a contribution to democracy and respect? Let us address the reality here. Let us get away from semantics and rhetoric and realise that these people have not changed, otherwise they would have been prepared at least to begin the process of handing over their illegal terrorist weaponry, rather than hanging on to it.
They talk about consent and the principle of consent that we are told by MrTrimble and his Colleagues was recognised in the Belfast Agreement. Well, here is the outworking of that principle of consent — the national flag can be torn down. Here is the great accountability that we were told that Ministers would have toward the Assembly. As we said they would, Ministers have full executive responsibility over the Departments that they control, and that is why they have handed power to McGuinness and the Minister of Health to tear down the national flag.
MrMandelson made it clear that the legislation made no provision for the flying of the national flag over this building. Even if MrMandelson issued a directive that flags should fly over all Government buildings, that would not apply to Parliament Buildings, Stormont. Members and the general public need to be aware of that. The so-called safeguard that was introduced does not actually apply to this building.
We in this House are determined to ensure that wherever possible the national flag flies on appropriate buildings on appropriate days, and we stand by that.

Dr Ian Adamson: Now for something a wee bit different. Ulster has a unique position, set as it is against the face of Britain across a narrow sea and separated from the rest of Ireland by a zone of little hills, so the characteristics of our language and our people have been moulded by movements large and small between the two islands since the dawn of human history.
The difference between Ulster and the rest of Ireland is one of the most deeply rooted, ancient and, from a literary point of view, most productive facts of early Irish history. Ulster’s bond with Scotland and Britain as a whole counterbalances her lax tie with the rest of Ireland. We need but think of the kingdoms of the ancient British Cruthin in both areas, and of the Ulster Scottish kingdom of Dál Riada from the last quarter of the fifth to the close of the eighth century. We can think of Irish relations with the kingdom of the Hebrides and Argyll from the twelfth century on and, particularly, of the immigration of Hebridean soldiers, gallowglasses, from the thirteenth century to the sixteenth century, which led to the Gaelic revival. There was a constant coming and going between north-eastern Ireland and western Scotland. The Glens of Antrim were in the hands of the Scottish MacDonalds by 1400, which is why we have Alasdair with us today, and for the next 200years Gaelic-speaking Scots came in large numbers. The often-quoted seventeenth century immigration of numerous Scots need not be considered outside the preceeding series, bringing of course yourself, MrSpeaker. There has been movement of people between the two islands ever since.
Yet to me the denial by Nationalists and Republicans of the essential Britishness of Ireland in general and Ulster in particular must be considered a root cause of the conflict here in Northern Ireland. Ireland was British in the second century, and Ulster was British until at least the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian era. The third and fourth centuries in Ireland, or little Britain as it was known to the Greeks and Romans, are extremely remarkable for the unusually rapid development of the Gaelic language, which was originally brought to Ireland by Spanish invaders. This is evidenced by the passage of loan words used by the native British population into Gaelic, which itself means raider or barbarian in old British. The name Ireland is pre-Celtic, but Glasgow is old British or Welsh for green hollow, and Paisley is old British or Welsh for basilica, or church of Christ.
For many ordinary Unionists today our British heritage in all its aspects, ancient, medieval and modern, is represented by the Union flag. The attempted neutralisation by some Nationalists and Republicans therefore represents for them a worrying expression of anti-British sentiment and the fundamental denial of their civil rights and liberties.
Surely it would be much better to listen to the words of SeamusHeaney when he says in the introduction to his great Irish epic ‘Buile Suibhne’ — ‘Sweeney Astray’:
"It is possible, in a more opportunistic spirit, to dwell upon Sweeney’s easy sense of cultural affinity with both western Scotland and southern Ireland as exemplary for all men and women in contemporary Ulster, or to ponder the thought that this Irish invention may well have been a development of a British original."
I support the motion.

Mr Alban Maginness: Like many in the House, I have a sense of déjà vu in relation to this issue, particularly given the remarks of Assembly Member CedricWilson this morning in which he referred to the Petition of Concern as being "the product of the pan-Nationalist front". Of course it is not the product of the pan-Nationalist front. The Alliance Party and the Women’s Coalition are also involved. I remind CedricWilson that, on another occasion in the House — indeed, on 17January — he, along with the Ulster Unionists, the DUP and Sinn Féin went into the Lobbies against the SDLP on a reasoned amendment in relation to this issue of flags. The SDLP, on that occasion, put forward an amendment that sought to put this issue where it should be — at the heart of the Good Friday Agreement. This is where this issue should be dealt with, within the Good Friday Agreement.
We as a party have not used or abused our Ministries as party political property, we have not given orders to civil servants in relation to raising or lowering flags. No order has come from SDLP Ministers in relation to this. We reject the concept of Ministries being silos that are party political property. The SDLP believes that this issue, like all other contentious issues, should be brought to the Assembly. It should be thrashed out in the Executive, and we should try to reach agreement. That is the approach of our Ministers. We did not take unilateral action, nor do we intend to. We intend to move forward, to try to reach agreement on this most contentious issue. The importance of this issue is recognising that within the Good Friday Agreement, all these contentious issues are, in fact, being addressed.
Dermot Nesbitt, in his address to the House, said that Unionists argue that the Union flag should be flown because the principle of consent means that NorthernIreland is part of the United Kingdom. That is a simplistic view of the agreement. It is a simplistic view of the flag issue. It is an incorrect reading of the agreement.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr Alban Maginness: No, I will not because my time is short. The principle of consent is only one of the six principles on constitutional arrangements for Northern Ireland laid down in international law and in the Good Friday Agreement. There are five others, including, importantly, an affirmation that, whether Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom or not, there will be
"parity of esteem and ... just and equal treatment for the identity, ethos and aspirations of both communities."
Furthermore, the agreement recognises the right of all the people of Northern Ireland to
"identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both".
It is therefore simplistic to say that the flag should be flown because of the principle of consent. Account also has to be taken of the other principles to which I have referred.
Finally, there are three ways of addressing the contentious issue of flags. First, you could do it on the basis of equality. Secondly, you could do it on the basis of total neutrality.
Thirdly, you could do it on the basis of trying to create and achieve consensual, common symbolism. The latter approach was taken by this Assembly when it was initially set up, when it embraced the flax flower as its motif, as its logo. That was a step in the right direction, and that is the step which I and my party believe you should try to follow. Surely that is a reasonable approach; surely it is reasonable to try to unite people rather than divide them.

Mr Jim Shannon: I speak in support of the proposal. I have received a lot of correspondence on this issue through my advice centre, by phone and by letter. The meaningfulness of the Union has given us the freedom to express our identity and culture without malice and within the confines of the law of the land. The truth of the matter is that pan-Nationalism does not understand the concept of the Union and has no wish to do so. Their political philosophy does not seek to include but rather to exclude. It is a profoundly elitist ideal in which those who do not fulfil their anti-British or Gaelic/Irish agenda have no part to play. It can not, therefore, be surprising that a movement which seeks to destroy the constitutional wishes of the majority should also challenge the authority of the sovereign Government as represented through the flag of the Union. This lack of democracy is no better illustrated than by IRA/Sinn Féin’s actions in challenging the Crown in Northern Ireland and removing the flag of the sovereign Government from Government buildings. They have done this because it represents all that these people detest: freedom, liberty and justice for all.
Their agenda also purports to see freedom, liberty and justice for all — but only if you fit their bill. Thirty years of murder is a very real reflection of what will happen if you do not comply. They have represented a political philosophy which belongs in the Dark Ages, one that is founded on hatred, sectarianism, cultural apartheid and intimidation. Of course, it is the individual’s democratic right to peacefully espouse whatever political opinion he or she desires. Unfortunately the problem for Irish Nationalism is that it has always been both associated with and wedded to armed terror and to the physical eradication of all things British, including those who remain loyal to the Crown and to the principles of the Union. Members of the SDLP, of course, will probably take exception to some of these remarks. However, the fact of life in Ulster politics is that the SDLP now exists merely to give credibility to the actions of IRA/Sinn Féin. They have always operated from a position of apparent moderation, making conciliatory noises on the back of IRA/Sinn Féin activity, safe in the knowledge that they are not preventing the progress of their common agenda; the removal of all things British, including the right to fly the flag of the Government on Government buildings.
The SDLP preach inclusion and the need for cross-community co-operation yet practice exclusion. Their actions on Down District Council, for one example, do nothing to contradict this analysis. EamonnONeill, the Member for South Down, in his capacity as a member of Down District Council successfully proposed the banning of the Union flag from Down council’s buildings. In so doing he caused consternation amongst the people of that area, and consequently, members of the Unionist population there are considering their future in respect of the council.
This is the flag of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and represents the authority and the sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament. This flag, through the rights which flow from it, gives each and every individual and every local minority and majority the right to fully express their particular cultural and religious identities, as long as they do not impinge on other civil or religious liberties. To remove this flag is not just an unprecedented insult to every Unionist citizen in the district, but it also represents a two-fingered salute to the sovereign Government which gave this institution its power. One of our SDLP Members served in the UDR. He had no problem with that; he served for a number of years. He is not here at the moment, perhaps he is having his lunch. He was able to serve under the Union flag, and that was no bother to him. Unfortunately for Unionism the pan-Nationalist front has gained a new Member in the last few weeks in the form of the Ulster Unionist Party — in the form of the leadership — represented in this House by a group of individuals too concerned about paying off the new car, or paying for the holiday to worry about the fact that they are selling this country out from under their own clumsy feet.
Their 1998 Assembly manifesto contained the question "Will a ‘Yes’ vote undermine our flag and culture?" and gave the answer as "No." This is another example of a manifesto commitment cast aside by those new agents of pan-Nationalism, the leaders of the Ulster Unionist Party. We had a taste of having armed terrorists in Government between November 1999 and February 2000, and witnessed their intention to undermine the integrity of the Union flag.
When he came back from Taiwan, John Taylor told us that he had assurances on the Union flag and on the RUC. What we have seen is the very opposite. People could be forgiven for thinking that Mr Taylor had an example of Montezuma’s revenge, as we saw at the Waterfront Hall.

Mr Peter Weir: The leader of the main party opposite often tells us that one cannot eat a flag. That is a truism, but it is also an attempt to portray his party as post-Nationalist — one which has left Nationalism behind and embraces Europeanism. This is a very strange situation. For the first time in the two-year life of this Assembly, the SDLP has signed a Petition of Concern. Today we see the SDLP in its true green colours, a party with Nationalism at its heart.
The flags issue is crucial for Northern Ireland, and not simply because of the offence caused to many people by the failure of Sinn Féin Ministers to fly the flag, particularly in my constituency of North Down. One of the buildings affected has been the Department of Education headquarters at Rathgael House. Many of my constituents have been deeply offended by the actions of the Minister, Martin McGuinness. Flag-flying goes to the heart of such key issues as the acceptability of Sinn Féin in Government; the degree to which Nationalism has accepted the principle of consent; the degree to which our Britishness is being respected; and the degree to which the Executive works as a cohesive unit.
On the first of those issues, Sinn Féin must pass a number of tests if it is to be acceptable as part of the Government of Northern Ireland. It must show that it is committed to peaceful means: it has clearly failed to do that so far. It must show that it is committed to the rule of law: again, it has clearly failed to do that. Indeed, it has indicated that even in a post-Patten situation young Nationalists should not consider joining the police.
Secondly, the flags issue shows that Sinn Féin fails on the crucial issue of consent. We must be wary of this issue. Everyone is entitled to have aspirations. We all have aspirations. I aspire to play centre forward for Northern Ireland at Windsor Park. That is not going to happen. One of the Members opposite aspires to be Lord Mayor of Belfast, and to one day have the opportunity to drive a car that has not been provided for the disabled. There is nothing wrong with having aspirations, but I take grave exception to the placing of the aspiration for a united Ireland on a par with my British citizenship. That is unacceptable. It strikes at the heart of the consent principle.
We were told at the time of the referendum that the consent principle had been fully accepted by Nationalists. Then again, we were told many things at the referendum that have not come to pass. Mr Maginness’s speech showed that Nationalist acceptance of the principle of consent is, at best, extremely limited. It is like being put on a boat and told that you are able to step off the boat, but only at the last step before you go over the waterfall. That is the attitude of Nationalists. Their acceptance of consent is only at the very final question. Anything that highlights the principle of consent, be it the name of the Royal Ulster Constabulary or the flying of flags, is clearly not accepted.
Thirdly, this process has had the effect of diminishing our Britishness. We have seen the change of the RUC name.
We have seen the changes in the Criminal Justice Review, and now we are seeing the flag coming down. It is what a Colleague of mine calls "dimmer switch Britishness". Gradually the lights are going out throughout Northern Ireland on our British status.
Finally, this issue shows that the Executive is not operating as an Executive. There has not been one coherent policy, but rather a series of fiefdoms where individual Ministers take their own decisions without any collective will. Some people tell us that this matter has been resolved to their satisfaction, because it has been placed in the hands of the Secretary of State. This is a Secretary of State whose record on the flag in relation to the Patten report was totally unacceptable. I have no great confidence in the Secretary of State, but today the Assembly has the opportunity to give voice to our views. Despite the constraints put on this motion by the petition of concern from the SDLP, Sinn Féin, Alliance and the Women’s Coalition, Members should send a clear signal that they are committed to the principle of consent by supporting the motion and supporting the flying of the Union flag over Government buildings.

Mr Mark Durkan: First, I want to deal with some of the points raised about the approaches of different Ministers and parties to this matter. I re-emphasise Alban Maginness’ point that none of the SDLP Ministers directed that the flag was not to be flown on any of the designated days. That was not because we chose to have the flag flying, or wished the flag to be flown, but because we recognise that we have agreed in the Good Friday Agreement to deal with this sensitively. We are going to try to come to some agreement, some workable accommodation.
Which building comes under the control of which Minister is a matter of chance. It so happens that my ministerial office is in Rathgael House, Bangor. However, it is not on the premises of the Department of Finance and Personnel, but the premises of the Minister of Education. On Friday, the flag did not fly over the building in which my office is located. However, the result of such a directive is that the area surrounding Rathgael House has become a veritable theme park of all sorts of flags — not just the Union flag, but the flags of various Loyalist paramilitaries. I cannot see how that solves the problem. I cannot understand how people can be so concerned and vexed about one flag flying over a building, and then take great delight and amusement when the building and its approach roads are surrounded by much more offensive flags. Flags carrying the emblems of paramilitaries are sinister. They are not flags to which anyone could profess the respect and esteem that I recognise that Colleagues opposite do to the Union flag.
That is what stunt politics generates. Putting flags up all over the place and pulling flags down all over the place is stunt politics. We are not going to get into that, whatever the political pressures that might be upon us.
Government Departments are not the private property of the parties to which the Ministers belong. That also applies to parties talking about rotating Ministers and Departments. We hear about DUP Departments and Sinn Féin Departments. Departments should not be identified according to the party political allegiance of their Ministers. That is completely wrong. It is unfair to the people who work in those Departments and to the people relating to those Departments and depending on their services. That is why we are behaving with sensitivity.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Has this anything to do with flags?

Mr Speaker: It is a great deal closer to the mark than some of the other speeches.

Mr Mark Durkan: We want to be clear on that point. In case anyone tries to misinterpret or misrepresent what we are saying, I ask those who say that we should have ordered the flags down what the result would have been? It would have compounded an already difficult situation. Feelings are running high, and people are very sensitive about this issue. For us to have jumped on that bandwagon would have only compounded the difficulties. It would not have helped to solve the problem. It would have ensured that we go even more rapidly to the invocation of the directive powers that the Secretary of State has in reserve.
That is something which we have said we are opposed to. We are not going to engage in a cheap stunt by saying we are opposed to the Secretary of State’s powers, but are going to commit ourselves to a gimmick that actually means that those powers are more likely to be invoked and prevent us from any chance of actually dealing with and addressing this particular problem together.
We are trying to show sensitivity on this. That is why I particularly resent the suggestions and the insinuations that a pan-Nationalist front is afoot, and that we are trying to strip people of their Britishness.
Unionists want to feel that they have a place of respite under this Agreement. They want to know that the Agreement, as the package that they believe it is, and as the process about which Nationalists talk, is not an ever-growing Nationalist process and an ever- diminishing Unionist package.
That is a serious political issue, which we all have to address responsibly. It is going to take time for us to learn to respect each other and adjust. That is why we have done nothing prematurely.
Equally, it would have been unforgivable for us to allow this particular motion— which is not about sensitivity — to pass. It is about flying the flags on even more days than have already been the cause of controversy. That would hardly be sensitive, and we could not afford to have such a motion passed by this House — and which would have the standing of this House — possibly being abused in the future by the Secretary of State when it comes to his directive powers. We had no choice but to put forward the petition of concern.

Mr Duncan Dalton: As a Member of the Ulster Unionist Party I will be supporting the motion put forward by the DUP. However, the motion is divisive. They are again exercising themselves in simply trying to stir up division, cause trouble, whinge, moan, complain and sit in the corner and take their salaries at the end of the month.
The flags issue has divided the community in Northern Ireland for a long time, and it is going to continue to divide us. I am grateful to the SDLP for the way in which it has shown sensitivity in the Departments it controls. That is a sensible way forward and it respects the sensitive nature of this issue in both communities. It shows that the SDLP is willing, on this occasion, to actually try and listen to, and to understand and deal sensibly with, issues that are different between the Unionists and Nationalists in this community.
It is a shame that Sinn Féin has not learnt that it would be good for them to actually try on one occasion to understand Unionists a bit. It could try to understand that we have sensitivities, and that the symbols of Unionism and of our culture are important to us. I would be grateful if Sinn Féin would try and do this in order to make it easier for those of us who are trying extremely hard to deal with the baggage that we carry while trying to move this community on. Yet it continues to slap people like us in the face.

Mr David Ervine: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have to say that in another august body in Long Kesh we could hear the debates. I cannot hear what people are saying here.

Mr Speaker: Order. The debate is coming towards its end now, and I appeal to Members to hold respect for a bit longer.

Mr Duncan Dalton: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The flying of the Union flag is not the display of a cultural symbol for me. The Union flag does not represent my British culture. It represents the symbol of the state in which I reside. If, by Act of Parliament, the flag were changed tomorrow, then I would give my allegiance to the new flag that was created. It just so happens that the flag that is in existence is the one that was created following the Act of Union in 1801.
If the United Kingdom, the Queen and Parliament decided to make a change to that flag, then that would be the new flag of the nation in which I reside. All that I would ask is for respect to be given to the flying of the flag that reflects the nation in which we reside. That is what is contained in the agreement. The principle of consent means that we respect the flag of the nation we reside in. We respect the fact that Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom. That is the compromise that has been given.
There is a compromise on both sides here — Unionists have compromised in accepting that, in the eventuality of the majority of people in NorthernIreland agreeing that their future was best in a UnitedIreland, the constitutional status of NorthernIreland would change. I would not choose to reside in that state — I simply would not wish to. However, we have compromised on that. We are prepared to accept that, even though it is against our will. As a minority we would accept the decision of the majority. We are asking, when the reverse of that is the case, that Nationalists accept that the majority of people in NorthernIreland wish to reside in the UnitedKingdom. In view of this, the symbols of the state of the UnitedKingdom should be the ones which are seen in and on public buildings in NorthernIreland.
I spoke yesterday with my partner who has just come back from England. She was struck by the fact that when she was driving through England there were far fewer flags displayed. What she also found interesting was that all the Union flags on display in England were in good order and properly maintained.

Mr Denis Haughey: I can understand how, when Members are speaking, occasional remarks are passed. However, I do not think that it is acceptable in the House for there to be a fascistic conspiracy to deprive Members of their democratic right to make their points of view. I call on you, Mr Speaker, to take those measures necessary to ensure that MrShipley Dalton and other Members have the democratic right to make their views known.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: MrHaughey has made my point. I want to hear what MrShipley Dalton is saying, and I am being deprived of that by the rabble down in that corner.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: We are often told that the House follows the practices of another place. There is a continual conspiracy on the part of the pan-Nationalists to keep me from speaking and to defeat me at the polls, but I beat them every time. What will these Gentlemen do if they are elected to the House of Commons? They would be on their feet all the time complaining that they can hear nothing. I sit on a Bench where I cannot hear anything — even the Speaker cannot hear. They feel that it is not parliamentary if someone passes a comment on what is said.

Mr Speaker: There are two separate issues. One is the question of occasional remarks being passed — this is not unusual and occasionally even contributes to the debate. However, it is a different matter when there is a continual barrage interrupting a particular Member. I would not dream of asking Members to feel respect for each other, but I do ask that Members behave with respect for each other.
The Member who has spoken is right. That is not always apparent in another place. I do invite him to come up the corridor, where he will find it a little more apparent in the other place. He will find the Members there alert and hearing what is going on, rather than rowdy and not listening to what is going on. I appeal to Members to behave with respect to each other, even when they do not feel it all the time.

Mr Nigel Dodds: I appeal to Members of the House to allow the Member who is speaking to say what he is saying very clearly. What he is saying is extremely interesting and no doubt will be of extreme importance in days to come. Given his views on the national flag, the more he speaks the better.

Mr Speaker: I therefore appeal for the Member’s assistance with his Colleagues.

Mr Sammy Wilson: It might be nice to have this repeated at —

Mr Speaker: That is not a point of order, and the Member was not called to speak.

Mr Duncan Dalton: I am very pleased that NigelDodds, the Member for North Belfast, for once actually wants to listen to what I have to say. The point I was trying to make was that in discussions yesterday with my partner, who has just recently returned from England — and before anybody in the Front Bench of the DUP gets the host up, my female partner — pointed out to me that in her travels she saw a number of Union flags, although nowhere near the number one sees in NorthernIreland.
Every last one of them was well maintained and flown the right way up. She returned to Northern Ireland and saw raggedy flag after raggedy flag tied to lamp-posts in Dundonald.
In this community we have used and abused the Union flag for many years. Rather than showing it the proper respect it deserves as a symbol of our nation, we have used it as a battering ram and as an attempted cultural symbol for one community to do down the other with. That is why Nationalists find it difficult to accept the Union flag as the flag of our nation. How is that going to be improved by flying yet more flags from lamp-posts around Rathgael House?
I hope that the Minister of Education will, in due course, listen to the concerns of Unionists and respect what he signed up and agreed to in the agreement. The principle of consent means that NorthernIreland remains part of the United Kingdom, and therefore the flag of the United Kingdom, as chosen by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, should be the one that flies on public buildings.

Mr Speaker: Order. The time is up. Many other Members wish to speak on this debate. Some of those who had the chance to speak felt rather frustrated that they were allowed only five minutes. Others, who got no chance, will have been even more frustrated, but the Business Committee decided that the time available was to be two hours, and we have come to the end of that period. I call on DrPaisley to make the winding-up speech, and we will then move immediately to the vote before suspending for lunch.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: This debate was brought about not by the DUP but by the attitude of two Ministers who used their powers to see to it that the flag of our nation was not flown on two days when it should have been. They did not ask the Assembly if that action had universal or even majority support. They did something that was a purely political act to try and satisfy their followers that they were making headway on the Republican agenda that they have embraced.
I notice that every time a Unionist spokesman talks about the pan-Nationalist front, the SDLP gets very excited. There are people other than the SDLP and the IRA/SinnFéin in the pan-Nationalist front, and the Ulster people have recognised that.
They can abuse me as much as they like. I will not suffer. I will go to Westminster today and cast my vote against the Police Bill. I will sleep well tonight and be back in the morning to do the task that I have to do, but they should realise that I am not speaking for myself. I am speaking for the ordinary, individual Ulsterman who wants to remain in the United Kingdom. No one in the House can deny me that right because on five occasions the people of this Province have had the opportunity to say yes or no, and they said yes.
Even at the last election, when every weapon was used, finances flowed, and newspapers would not take a statement from me, they did not succeed. When you abuse me, you abuse the majority of Ulster’s men and women who have the same convictions.
Sticks and stones may break my bones. The Republicans have fired on me, beaten up my wife when she was a member of Belfast City Council — stoned her — and attempted to murder my son by loosening the wheels on his car. He was clever enough to catch it on. The police said that if he had driven the car, he probably would have been killed. We have all been under that sort of threat, but it will not stop us. Get rid of IanPaisley, and there will be somebody else speaking the same language and saying the same thing because this represents a large number of people.
I am highly insulted by what Mr Durkan has said. I never thought he would say that Unionists were looking for some place of respite. We are not on the run. He may think we are, but we are not. We are not looking for respite care. We can take care of ourselves. The leading spokesman and Finance Minister of Northern Ireland says that the people of Northern Ireland who do not agree with what is going on, are looking for some place of respite. We are doing nothing of the sort. I want to tell Mr Durkan that we are going to keep the flag flying. We are not going to bend the knee to IRA/Sinn Féin, or any member of the pan-Nationalist front.
Some Members mentioned backgrounds and where people came from. I have no apology to make for my background. It is a pity that the lady, who is not present — oh, I see she is present although she is taking a back seat — MrsNelis, did not tell us about her history, about the gypsy she was when she left the SDLP. She did not tell us that her husband was a member of the UDR. We might as well have the full information. When her husband came home did she pick off the harp and the crown and say "You do not need to wear that. That offends me."? I do not know whether she said that. The Minister herself was quick to —

Mr Pat McNamee: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Am I correct in saying that the Member used the word "gypsy" to describe a Member of my party? If so, I think it is inappropriate language.

Mr Speaker: It may not be welcome, but it is not unparliamentary.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: The Member will have to learn a bit more. I have been at this game a long time.
We have the Minister who signed the decree to keep the flag off MrDurkan’s building, so he could not fly the flag, nor could the Secretary of State, according to the press. She cannot be proud of her family tree now, as a Republican, because they were all eminent in the British Army. It is interesting that these things have arisen and that all the blame is put upon the poor Ulster Unionists.
MrDallat has quite a record about flags. It was very interesting that he mentioned two murders and forgot about all the IRA murders. He forgot about the tortures and the mutilation that were carried out on the bodies of the dead. I do not want to mention those in this House; they are so gruesome. He need not sit and smile. Only two Roman Catholic killings were the result of Protestants or Unionists. Let us get this right. This is a serious matter because it strikes at the sovereignty of our country.

Mr Cedric Wilson: Does DrPaisley agree that this Assembly is moving to a position where it will be unable to issue a decree on flags? Does he agree that this is not a matter for this Assembly or for the Secretary of State or for Her Majesty’s Government? It is a matter for those people who enforce the flying of the flag in line with the command of Her Majesty the Queen and, if all else fails, we should petition Her Majesty the Queen to ensure that her writ runs in Northern Ireland.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: This Assembly has the power to put the flags up on this Building. The Secretary of State has not taken that power. That power has not been devolved. Let no Unionist tell his people that the Secretary of State is responsible. The Secretary of State is not responsible for that. This Assembly is. That is why this motion is relevant to this Assembly.
What has been illustrated in the House today is the fact that this Assembly is not in charge of its own decisions because the pan-Nationalist front can bring forward its petition of concern. It has been argued by the Official Unionists that this is a breach of the right of self-determination — I already mentioned that in my opening speech — and that is right. But the right of self-determination must be the right of the majority of the population to exercise that self-determination. However, these people veto our right to do that so that we do not have that right. When we read the IRA statement of recent days we notice that it rejected the right of self-determination altogether and said self-determination would have to be eliminated before it would hand over its weapons.
I regret that Members of this House suggest, by the things that they say, that there is a conspiracy on these Benches to keep this man from speaking. If there was any such conspiracy I would have thought that you would have caught on to that long ago. But this is an act to denigrate this Assembly. One of the Members, Mr Nesbitt, said that we were only a little Assembly. I say to the Member that littleness is great. It may not be great in his eyes, but he could call with my optician and might get another pair of spectacles that would help him to appreciate it. This little Assembly can be great. I have no apology to make for the smallness of the territory of Northern Ireland. I am proud of Northern Ireland and I am proud of its people. The people of Northern Ireland are people that need to be encouraged after all they have been through.
Dr Farren came out in his true colours when he told us what he thought in his heart. When sitting at a table in another part of this Building I thought about the time when Mr Mallon told us what he thought of Carson’s monument. He said his flesh crept as he passed it every day. He is going to have terrible trouble with his flesh because he is passing it every day now — he will soon have creeping paralysis if he keeps going past that monument. The next thing will be that they will want to remove Carson’s monument and go back to what the civil righters could not do. They tried to shift the monument of Lord Craigavon — and if you climb the steps you can see the marks on the marble — but old Lord Craigavon’s bust shouted out "not an inch" and they could not get him down the steps.
These matters today are part of a programme — and they are all at one on those benches, and there are some people helping them on — the aim of which is that "we will get you" at the end.
As I said in my opening remarks, they did not have any trouble whatsoever with the minority in the Irish Republic — talk about toleration; the Orangemen could not even march in Dublin because they eliminated them, and that is why we have a population of only 2·5% Protestants now in the South of Ireland. In the South of Ireland there is not even a spokesman for the basic element of Protestantism or Britishness. That is because they are cowed into subjection.
Then we are told that we have to take them when they come here. When Mary McAleese comes up, the RUC are not good enough to protect her and their cars are not good enough for her to ride in. Yet she wants to be received and to sit in the Queen’s chair at the General Assembly; she did not want any lesser chair than that.
I say to the pan-Nationalists that the people of Northern Ireland will not lie down or go away. They might think that the people who are opposed to the agreement are all going to disappear some day. The IRA might shoot some of us and kill us, but that will not settle the matter.
There are people who are dedicated as long as they have the majority and, of course, MrKelly has not got 50%. To say that the Nationalists make up 50% is nonsense. I want to tell MrKelly that Protestants breed as well.
We are facing an issue that will not go away. I regret that the Executive, instead of facing this, handed it away. They thought they would get it easy, but that is not the case. It is the right of the people in this House to fly the flag on the Building. When we vote today, we are voting for something that we have a right to do. As for the petition of concern, there will always be a petition of concern when there is any matter that is not going to help forward the pan-Nationalist front and its Republican agenda.
I do not have time to deal with some of the matters that were raised in the debate. MrMcGuinness was trying to tell us of the wonderful spirit of unity that was in his heart, a wonderful spirit for his Official Unionist friends. I have never heard such hypocrisy in all my life. He was trying to tell us that, at this time, they were not prepared to fly the flag, but that that did not mean that for all time we would not have the Union flag flying from our buildings.

Mr Speaker: Order. Your time is up.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Let the Union flag fly.
Question put.
The Assembly divided: Ayes 53; Noes 41.
AYES
Unionist
Ian Adamson, Fraser Agnew, Pauline Armitage, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Tom Benson, Paul Berry, Esmond Birnie, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Joan Carson, Wilson Clyde, Fred Cobain, Robert Coulter, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Nigel Dodds, Boyd Douglas, Reg Empey, David Ervine, Sam Foster, Oliver Gibson, John Gorman, William Hay, David Hilditch, Derek Hussey, Billy Hutchinson, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, David McClarty, William McCrea, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Maurice Morrow, Dermot Nesbitt, Ian Paisley Jnr, Ian R K Paisley, Edwin Poots, Ken Robinson, Mark Robinson, Patrick Roche, George Savage, Jim Shannon, David Trimble, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Jim Wilson, Sammy Wilson.
NOES
Nationalist
Alex Attwood, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, John Dallat, Bairbre dé Brún, Arthur Doherty, Mark Durkan, Seán Farren, John Fee, Tommy Gallagher, Michelle Gildernew, Denis Haughey, Joe Hendron, John Kelly, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Alex Maskey, Donovan McClelland, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Martin McGuinness, Gerry McHugh, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Francie Molloy, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Mary Nelis, Danny O’Connor, Dara O’Hagan, Éamonn ONeill, Sue Ramsey, Bríd Rodgers, John Tierney.
Other
Eileen Bell, Seamus Close, David Ford, Kieran McCarthy, Monica McWilliams, Jane Morrice, Sean Neeson.
Total Votes 94 Total Ayes 53 (56.4%) Nationalist Votes 34 Nationalist Ayes 0 (0%) Unionist Votes 53 Unionist Ayes 53 (100%)
Question accordingly negatived.

Ms Pauline Armitage: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I had requested that a code of conduct should be drawn up and circulated to Tellers, so that they would be aware of how they should behave when acting as Tellers. This arose as I was in an unfortunate situation with a particular Teller. Has this been done, or are you working on it?

Mr Speaker: I did receive your request, and an advisory code of conduct for Tellers has been drawn up. Before that is issued, however, I will be consulting with the Business Committee and, in all probability, with the Procedures Committee. Having observed the vote in the last five or 10minutes, I think it extremely timely that we have an advisory code for the Tellers.

Mr Maurice Morrow: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As one who has acted as a Teller on a number of occasions, I am very concerned that a finger is being pointed at every Teller here today. My party and I know how to behave as Tellers. We do not interfere with anyone. That should be made quite clear. If an individual has acted in an ungentlemanly way or misconducted himself, that person should be dealt with.

Ms Pauline Armitage: I was not implying that that had happened.

Mr Speaker: I have responded to the question that has been raised. Members who were acute observers of which Lobbies particular Tellers were in, on this occasion, will understand that conduct is not necessarily a matter of being ungentlemanly or unladylike. It may sometimes be a matter of just being in the wrong Lobby at a particular time.
The sitting was suspended at 1.12 pm
On resuming (Madam Deputy Speaker [MsMorrice] in the Chair) —

Equality

Ms Jane Morrice: This debate will last two hours. The proposer may speak for 15minutes. Then there will be five minutes each for other contributors. The proposer will have another 15minutes to make the winding-up speech before which there will be a further 15minutes shared between the two junior Ministers.

Mr Conor Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. I beg to move the following motion:
That this Assembly notes with approval the work to be completed by 30 June 2000 by public bodies in order to comply with the requirements of Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
This motion has been put on the clár to afford the Assembly an opportunity to comment on, and set down markers in relation to, conformity with equality requirements by public bodies and other bodies in receipt of public funds. This is the month in which those bodies designated by the Secretary of State are to complete their equality schemes. It is an opportune time for us, as elected representatives, to note with approval the genuine efforts being made by some to conform fully with the requirements of section75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and to remind those who have produced inadequate responses that we are determined to hold them fully to those requirements. We must also ask why the Secretary of State appears to have exempted certain public bodies, and many bodies in receipt of public funds, from the requirements of the Act.
The inclusion of an equality agenda in the negotiations that led to the Good Friday Agreement was no accident. The unfortunate attitude of many public and private bodies in this state throughout its history was, perhaps, best summed up by John Taylor at the beginning of those negotiations, when he said
"Of course there can be equality of opportunity, but not equality. The Irish minority cannot be equal to the majority in Northern Ireland."
The incorporation of the equality agenda into the agreement was a direct consequence of resistance to the systematic discrimination that was prosecuted by the institutions of this state, including public bodies, for three generations. Until that apparatus of discrimination is dismantled, the emphasis on equality must be a major focus in the Programme for Government of this Administration. The Good Friday Agreement enshrined the equality agenda and paved the way for the creation of a new statutory duty under section75 of the Northern Ireland Act to promote equality among all public bodies. This requires such bodies to have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity, and that means more than just facilitating equality of opportunity. It means recognising the existing need to redress inequalities and actively promoting policies that address that need. These will inevitably include affirmative action measures, which will need to be clearly identified in equality schemes.
This is not just about religious and political discrimination, which has been the hallmark of this state, important though that is. Equality schemes must actively address disability issues. The experience of inequality among disabled people in this society is evidenced by the fact that nearly one in five persons of working age in the Six Counties has a disability which significantly limits their day-to-day activities. Only 31% of people with disabilities are in employment, compared to 75% of those without.
On gender issues, the discrimination experienced by women in all aspects of the economy of the Six Counties remains an obstacle to social change and economic equality. Just over half — 50·5% — of women are economically active, compared to 69·4% of men. Female workers are concentrated in low-paid, low-status jobs and in part-time, casual or temporary work with poor terms and conditions. Overall, women’s income from employment and/or benefits is only 61% of that of men.
On the issue of race, there is continuing racism on institutional and individual levels. The marginalisation of Irish travellers is reflected in their lower life expectancy, higher infant mortality and poorer educational attainment.
Attacks on, and harassment of, ethnic minorities are increasingly common in Irish society, both North and South. There are other issues relating to sexual orientation, age, religious belief, political opinion, and those with and without dependants.
On the unemployment differential, the most recent labour force survey, released a fortnight ago, demonstrated that Catholics are still more than twice as likely to be unemployed as Protestants. This has been the case throughout the last three decades, despite the repeated bogus claims about the efficiency of fair employment legislation in this society. The 1991 census showed that Catholic males in my constituency of Newry and Armagh were as much as three times more likely to be unemployed than Protestant males. In the Mid Ulster constituency, Catholic males were almost three times more likely to be unemployed than Protestant males, and Catholic females twice as likely as Protestant females to be unemployed. Undoubtedly this is as much a product of the practice of discrimination in job location as the practice of discrimination in job appointments. In an article published last year in the ‘European Journal of Political Economy’, ProfVani Borooah concluded that the central message, based on analysis of the 1991 census for Northern Ireland, was that there was clear evidence of discrimination against Catholics.
This systemic discrimination has been institutionalised in the Northern Ireland Civil Service. The latest equal opportunities audit, published earlier this year, shows gross under-representation of women and Catholics in the senior grades of the Civil Service. Indeed, it was not long ago that we had the spectacle of a Catholic woman being subjected to the worst kind of sectarian harassment in the office of BaronessDenton. Despite the shame and adverse publicity that that case brought upon the senior Civil Service grades, the perpetrator of that sectarian abuse was subsequently promoted.
Targets must be set, as part of the Programme of Government for this Administration, to eliminate the unemployment differential and to ensure equality of representation for Nationalists and women in the senior Civil Service grades. Many of the equality schemes produced to date, particularly and disappointingly those by many of the Government Departments, fall below acceptable standards. They are deficient in affirmative action measures, transparency monitoring and research, proper use of impact assessments, and effective timetables to tackle seriously the impact of inequality in this state. Some public bodies have not even been required by the Secretary of State to comply with the equality requirements. That is contrary to the intent of the Good Friday Agreement.
The Assembly should send out a signal that less than full and proactive adherence to the principles of equality will not be tolerated from anyone in receipt of public funding. The private sector should also take note of our determination in this regard. We should note with approval the work being undertaken on this issue, but should also serve notice that adherence to equality principles will be a central theme of these institutions. We will remain vigilant until full equality across all these issues has been attained. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: I am somewhat unclear about the meaning and intention of the motion. I am assuming that Members will be noting with approval the intended, or hoped for, result of the work currently being undertaken, and which has been completed by some public bodies and authorities. Rather than necessarily agreeing with Conor Murphy’s introductory remarks that many bodies have successfully completed the work, I would like to concentrate on his remarks questioning the levels of completion and adherence to the requirements by slightly amending them to "some bodies have successfully completed." In our view, an analysis of the existing draft equality schemes shows that they leave a lot to be desired, and they appear to have fallen well short of the intended aim.
I and my Colleagues, having examined draft reports from various public bodies, are particularly concerned that such bodies appear to be paying only lip-service to the scheme requirements. Many lack the appropriate levels of detail in their assessment plans. In particular, I draw the Member’s attention to the Departments that are attached to the Assembly. There is, in the SDLP’s view, a big flaw in many of the assessment plans. They appear to be statements of agreement with the spirit of the legislation, rather than of what arrangements are needed in order to carry out an equality impact assessment of their policies.
Recent European Commission research into equality legislation showed that the quality of the policy statement and the assumed equality-neutral character of the policy were two difficulties in promoting what it referred to as mainstreaming, that is, implementing quality legislation in the workplace. Our departmental equality schemes tend to fail on both counts, as they provide no information to support implicit assumptions or explicit statements of assumptions made.
There does not appear to be any joined-up government discussion of how one Department’s policy might influence another. In the SDLP’s view, Departments should provide much more detail on decisions relating to their timetable of work.
The documents appear — I am talking about the whole public body requirement — generally to support the requirements of the scheme. But, as I have said already, they do not go far enough in suggesting what is needed within the organisations to carry out an equality impact assessment on policy.
Often it is a simple matter of repeating the guidelines and agreeing with their implementation, rather than proactively illustrating how they can work. The true test is the commitment of finance and resources to achieve equality. It is a good test of a public body’s commitment to see whether it will "pony up", as we might say, and make a financial commitment.
As I am trying to illustrate, there is a mixed picture surrounding the draft schemes and their various aspects. For example, how far does the draft scheme issued by any body specify that adequate consideration will be given to impact assessments? I am now talking generally and not just about the Departments, which I have dealt with specifically. Too often one sees repetition of old Policy Appraisal and Fair Treatment-style formulae that are more about redressing discrimination than about actively promoting equality. Many of the schemes do not supply visible impact analysis plans. There are several other concerns, but my time is up.

Mr Edwin Poots: Madam Deputy Speaker, it is good to see you back in the Chair. This is an interesting debate, and it is interesting to see who has brought the equality issue forward.
I shall touch a little on the equality schemes in the first instance. I have to concur with some of Mr ONeill’s remarks. Many of the responses have lacked clarity, particularly in relation to staff training, resourcing, timetabling and impact assessment. There is also a lack of information on the financial implications of the measures proposed, and in many cases there is no indication of how they propose to communicate the schemes to young people. Many of the schemes do not address the needs of older people.
There is much work to be done on a lot of the schemes that have been brought forward on the draft proposals. There is a need for tightening up. The policy of the DUP on equality is that no one should suffer discrimination on account of gender, disability, religion, ethnicity or creed.
We believe that everyone is entitled to be in the same position in respect of getting jobs or of accessing the various options that are available to them and that no one should be discriminated against. I am thinking in particular of the new police force that is to be established and the fact that the selection of police officers is to be carried out on a fifty-fifty basis. In reality, there should be a system whereby those who are best qualified should be selected to carry out the job.
I was told today that Sinn Féin had been speaking to foreign journalists and telling them that people who had previously been engaged in paramilitarism should be entitled to join the RUC. In my view that is not equal representation. All those who adhere to the law and who are prepared to enforce it in an impartial manner should be entitled to apply to join the RUC, or the Northern Ireland Police Service, or whatever it happens to be called. Nothing else should be taken into account.
I would be interested to see how European money will be distributed under these new equality schemes. In the past there was a very unequal distribution of European money. We heard some interesting figures being quoted today — figures that go back to 1991. That is the last century, in case those people did not realise. It is time to come into the new century, into the new era, into the new millennium and leave the old century behind. On a regular basis, we hear old, irrelevant figures being quoted, but perhaps a lot of people in South Armagh, those referred to, were "doing the double" at that time. That was before the Tories had drawn up the legislation which stamped out a lot of that, and perhaps not as many people were unemployed as the statistics created by that census showed. That census has undoubtedly been used to discriminate against members of my community when it came to getting money from the European peace funds, and that should be addressed under the new equality initiative. Ministers of this Government have made certain appointments. How does that fit in with the equality agenda? The Health Department, for example, has brought out its equality agenda, and yet the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has taken on a multiple murderer to act as her special adviser. Was that person the best qualified to do the job, or was it simply a case of employing somebody because of his past? [Interruption]

Ms Jane Morrice: Will the Member please be very cautious about his remarks.

Mr Edwin Poots: I have nothing to be cautious about, Madam Deputy Speaker. I can name the person he murdered. He happened to come from my constituency, and I went to school with his son. I have no problem in doing that, if it is the wish of the Assembly. I can understand that that Minister would, perhaps, like to portray herself as being a very green Republican in spite of the fact that some of the Sunday newspapers indicated that she comes from a fine line of British Army soldiers. Her great-grandfather once joined the forces to suppress Fenians — a fact that is quite amusing. Given that that was her background, she may go out of her way — [Interruption]

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Mr Edwin Poots: — to be seen to be more Republican than necessary, but she should not let that affect her dealings with the workforce. She should employ everybody on an equal basis.

Ms Jane Morrice: I am afraid your time is up, MrPoots.

Prof Monica McWilliams: There are currently a number of problems with these schemes, and from what I understand, 105 of them have been completed to date. I want to pay tribute at this point to a number of bodies that have called for consultation with others, in particular the South Eastern Education and Library Board, which wrote to Assembly Members yesterday. The letter gave details of meetings at which the Board is prepared to have consultation before it finally submits its schemes. This is a piece of good practice which the other designated bodies would have done well to follow, rather than simply preparing a scheme and forwarding it to each of us. We currently have approximately 50 of these schemes sitting on our desks, and they could have notified us about some of these consultation meetings.
That brings me to my first point. This is such a new method of designing equality in NorthernIreland that a great deal more consultation should have taken place. There are three stages. The Equality Commission made it very clear to the designated bodies that they could have taken more time in the preparation for approval of the schemes, and then decided on what should be screened for impact assessment statements.
Having read a number of them, I am concerned that the departmental bodies — not the non-departmental ones — have decided what they are screening out. So, it seems they have taken a very negative approach to the issue of equality. In other words, they are deciding what they are not going to do, rather than what they are going to do.
Finally, there would have been a third stage, after the schemes had been forwarded to the Equality Commission, when there could have been some consultation on the impact assessment statements. I am slightly disappointed that they did not take the opportunity to engage in the kind of wide-ranging consultation that needs to happen on issues of equality, and in which the Human Rights Commission is now prepared to engage, in relation to its bill of rights.
This is a unique opportunity for NorthernIreland. Human rights and equality should not be owned by any section of the House — they belong to us all. With that in mind, I commend MrPoots for his early comments, before he got into the disappointing party political statements. He was right in saying that Departments have lost an opportunity to speak to children in particular about the impact, and also to older people who have often been the more excluded and marginalised members of our community.
Most of the schemes comment on disability, religion, race and gender. However, this was an opportunity for us to bring in others, and link up Departments which are responsible for older people and the younger members of our community.
There is serious concern that the Secretary of State has still not designated other bodies for equality schemes. Different types of bodies have been designated, and those currently completing the schemes have been designated under two pieces of legislation — the Commissioner for Complaints (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 and the Ombudsman (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. The Secretary of State has the power to designate other bodies and has not done so. He should now set out a timetable by which he will designate them and let us see how comprehensive these bodies are.
Now that our new Ministers are in place, they should be committed to the schemes. In their absence, the Departments and the designated bodies had to go ahead and prepare the schemes. The Ministers may not have had much time to sign off the schemes, other than perhaps by adding their signatures. Now is the time for them, in this consultation process, to be active change agents. If the statements do not come from the top and there is not a commitment to allocate resources — as MrPoots has pointed out — and put the training in place, they will only be as good as words on paper. Many of us know that writing reports or making statements is worth little if they are not enforced or implemented.
I take some hope from the fact that we have now gone a long way in NorthernIreland towards not just talking about and using the rhetoric of equality, but to producing action.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: I thank MrConorMurphy for proposing the motion on equality, as it gives the House an early opportunity to examine the issue of equality schemes currently out for consultation across Government Departments.
The equality schemes set up under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 are a worthwhile first step. However, I know, from my own experience in responding to the Department of Education’s scheme, that the consultation period is very short. If equality is to work for any group of people then the key to success is enforcement and accountability. I call on the Departments, and the Ministers in particular, to put equality high on their agenda. I call on them to ensure that section75 is implemented in full and that they address some of the issues raised today and I call on them to ensure that adequate resources are allocated, suitable training is given to staff and that appropriate mechanisms are put in place for proper consultation, particularly, complaint procedures.
Questions also need to be asked about whether the internal management structures for coping with the equality duty are adequate and about whether suitable weight is given to the equality of opportunity considerations when it comes to making final decisions. These queries need to be answered and appropriate amendments made to redress the major flaws in these schemes.
I would also like to bring to the House’s attention the specific issue of equality for those with a disability under the requirements of section75 of the Act. The House will be aware that the Disability Discrimination Act of 1995 is already on the statute book. However, for this law to have real teeth in the future, it is essential to establish a commission of enforcement for Northern Ireland. Without such enforcement it will not be possible to make serious inroads into the present levels of discrimination. In the rest of the UK the newly formed Disability Rights Commission has real teeth to deal with those who flout the law. In Great Britain, the commission possesses the powers not only to investigate cases of inequality in the workplace but, where necessary, to pursue action through the courts. As no such protection or redress exists for disabled people in Northern Ireland, I look forward to early legislation emanating from the Office of the First and Deputy First Ministers not only to correct this imbalance, but, more importantly, to protect disabled people against discrimination in our society.
As a result of the House’s recent suspension, the powers contained in the Equality (Disability, etc) (Commencement No 1) Order (Northern Ireland) 2000 were left for others to decide. As a result, disabled people in Northern Ireland got a raw deal and did not receive the protection they rightly deserve. The House has the duty in the months and years ahead to ensure such protection. Then and only then will we be able to talk seriously about equality.

Mr Gregory Campbell: In recent years there has been a more pragmatic and forward-looking approach to various aspects of equality legislation, particularly when it refers to disability and gender. May I echo the comments made by MrPoots that noone in the House would contemplate or countenance accepting or acquiescing to discrimination on the grounds of ethnicity, religion, community background or anything else. We believe in the concept of a fair and equal society.
Now, looking at the timetable for equality impact assessments, it is very clear, taking the equality agenda as a whole, that what is happening in Northern Ireland is the emerging of a concept of inequality. A revision of legislation is being undertaken as result of this concept rather than as a result of reality. That concept is total and utter nonsense. It is a fallacy that people are discriminated against in Northern Ireland because they are Roman Catholic. People may say that for party political purposes or because they need some medical or psychiatric assistance. Perhaps they should listen and learn.
The tenth monitoring report of the Equality Commission is available only now; it was issued last week and gives the current up-to-date figures, in local government terms, for the Nationalist-controlled councils. In Newry and Mourne — I think one of its representatives spoke earlier — 76·8% of recruits last year were Roman Catholic. In the case of Down District Council — again, one of its representatives spoke earlier — 78·9% of recruits last year were Roman Catholic. In Londonderry — a representative has not spoken until now — 77·4% of recruits were Roman Catholic. In the case of Omagh District Council, 73·8% of recruits were Roman Catholic. Strabane came out remarkably well: only 60% were Roman Catholic. What sort of world are these people living in? I have not gone into the statistics for private sector companies, which I have mentioned from time to time over the past 20years.

Mr Denis Haughey: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gregory Campbell: No, not when I have only one and a half minutes.
The private sector is even worse. In the case of Norbrook Laboratories, the head of which sits on one of the North/South Councils, 85·9% of recruits are Roman Catholics. The figure for Glen Electric is 95·1% — we are coming close to 100%. Sean Quinn’s is 91·2% Roman Catholic. Reality checks are needed big time. People want to try to dwell on a concept and an illusion of reality. In reality, our community is being discriminated against day in, day out.
Any equality impact assessment study must take account of the impact that reverse discrimination has had over the past 20years. There is nothing that I have seen or heard from either the Equality Commission or any submissions to it that takes account of that — nothing. It has to be and it must be taken account of because these figures demonstrate a worsening position. If I were to read out the figures of 10years ago they would have been slightly better than that. Where there are large numbers of Roman Catholics in employment, even more are being recruited. Of course there is the reverse situation where there are a large number of Protestants being employed, but it is not the case that large numbers of Protestants are also being recruited.

Ms Michelle Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat. Equality is central to the Good Friday Agreement and the incorporation of the equality agenda into the Good Friday Agreement was a direct result of the inequalities that have existed in this state since partition. As my Colleague, ConorMurphy, pointed out, senior Unionist politicians in the Six Counties failed to recognise the inequalities that existed then, and some still fail to recognise them.
Section 75 is a key part of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Section 73 outlines the duties of the Equality Commission. The legislation also details the equality schemes that will help to address the imbalances in our society. It should provide a framework to help ensure that equality of opportunity for all is made a reality in policy making. By 30 June, public authorities will have to comply with the requirements of section 75 by law. However, it is vital that all public authorities are included in this designation. At this point PeterMandelson, who has authority for designating bodies in receipt of public funding, has not yet designated universities, further education colleges and UK Departments. I urge him to do so immediately.
The UK Departments include the Home Office, which is responsible for the appalling conditions to which asylum seekers here are still subjected, and the Social Security Agency, which clearly has an obligation to promote equality. Some other glaring omissions include the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, which has is no equality scheme for the IDB — a body which has been criticised recently for its poor management and bad judgement, and which has a huge budget to spend as and, more importantly, where it wishes.
The Department for Social Development, in which there is no equality scheme for the Belfast Regeneration Office, has spent millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money on the Laganside project; but it is doubtful how this will impact on the most deprived areas of the city in terms of employment and accessibility. While the docks area thrives with building work going on as far as the eye can see, areas like north and west Belfast remain as they were, with dereliction and deprivation being the norm.
We are in danger of creating greater divisions and disparity in this city, and across the Six Counties, unless funding is properly allocated so that all can benefit from the resources that are available. If the Belfast Regeneration Office does not have to comply with equality legislation, there will be a danger that Nationalist areas will suffer neglect. What I find hardest to understand is the reticence of the Office of the Centre, under the First and Deputy First Ministers, on addressing religious and political discrimination. They are listed in the screening process as matters for consideration in five years from now. The same scheme has listed community relations for impact appraisal in the first year of work.
The promotion of equality in employment, goods and services should be the primary duty and the promotion of good relations a secondary consideration. If the former is achieved, it should surely underpin the latter. As for the equality schemes themselves, it is essential to have clear and unambiguous timetables specified for achieving the tasks and goals. Equality schemes must include timetables for training, for screening and for the production of impact assessments and annual reports. They must clearly specify how the body concerned intends to secure equality and not merely repeat the guidelines. We have to ensure that overlaps that may exist are properly dealt with and do not result in gaps in the provision for equality. Schemes must indicate the extent of their responsibilities for impact assessment and show how this relates to the next level up or down to ensure adequate protection.
None of the equality schemes that I have seen to date has addressed one of the most important aspects of this work — is the effective monitoring of employment practices by public authorities. We all know about disparities in employment practices which were only addressed in part by the old fair employment legislation. For example, senior ranks of the Civil Service and Government Departments discriminated wholesale against Catholics.

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. There are conversations going on which I am able to hear from the Chair. Let us keep quiet while the Member continues.

Ms Michelle Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat. We all know about disparities in employment practices which were addressed only in part by the old fair employment legislation. We must use this opportunity to get it right and to ensure that future generations are not discriminated against because of religious belief, political opinion, age, sexual orientation, race, gender, dependence or disability. Go raibh maith agat.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I am sure we will get order.
Equality, as MrCampbell has confirmed, is a term like reconciliation, agreement and even peace that has many definitions,depending on your background and perceptions. It is therefore difficult for us to ascertain how the statutory duty in section 75 will affect the need for equality of opportunity for all and how it will be implemented by designated public authorities in terms of good value, equal treatment, and best practice. This must be done within the specified criteria. I recommend a means used by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. It has circulated to all other bodies, and to their staff, an Equality Commitment Statement. If any member of staff feels that he is being discriminated against in any way he can call that up to have it dealt with.
Something like that is clear. As other Members have said, sometimes it is great to put something on paper, but it can be hard to implement it. The submissions that I have read from many different public authorities and bodies make very similar reading. It looks as if they all used the same template, which seems to be this guide to the statutory duties. I got the definite impression that many, if not all, seem to have been completed simply because they were obligatory rather than from an informed viewpoint, and clearly that gives concern.
The Equality Commission has worked tirelessly on advising and informing authorities on the implementation of the statutory duty, but it is early days for all of us. We will need to support the Equality Commission’s examination of policies for promoting equality of opportunity. This must be done within appendix 1 of the Act, which I do not have time to read out.
Equality-impact assessment must also be clearly and effectively conducted so that everyone feels they have been treated exactly the same. The consultation process, as others have mentioned, must be thorough and comprehensive; it does not seem to have been in some submissions I have seen in different areas which I know. There has not been as wide a consultation to complete their submission as there should have been. Members have already mentioned shortcomings regarding disability and gender, therefore, rather than follow my notes, I shall merely say that I share their concerns.
One of the main problems to date is the complete absence of information for the public, who seem unaware of the statutory duty’s implications. Procedures must be publicised for the public so that equality requirements can be properly maintained. As has been said, in due course equality schemes must be produced by other bodies and authorities that have not been designated, and I hope the Secretary of State will examine that. Organisationssuch as the Assembly must look at it to ensure that we lead the way in promoting equality at all levels. Our Departments have had to make submissions on issues like employment and recruitment practice, and procedures of general good practice and we must do likewise.
We are in the early days of real equality that we all understand. However, I will, as a Member of the Committee of the Centre, along with my Colleagues, be looking at the role of the Office of the First Minister and Deputy Minister in the area of equality. We shall be looking carefully at implementation so that all the gaps are stopped. Like others, I welcome this. When I first looked at this motion, I thought it was perhaps too early. But I now believe, on the basis of comments made by others, that it has been timely, ensuring that we all know what we are in for in the coming months, and hope that we can all look each other in the face equally.

Mr Maurice Morrow: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I listened with interest to what MrCampbell said about the Equality Commission’s annual report. As most Members know, Assembly Members get most reports that go out, but it is significant that we do not get a copy of that particular one. Would it be in order for the Assembly to take that point up with the Equality Commission and ask it why it does not circulate this report annually to Members?

Ms Jane Morrice: That is not a point of order, but the matter could be taken up with the Printed Paper Office.

Mr Peter Weir: I agree with the closing remark of my North Down Colleague EileenBell that this debate on the issue of equality is timely. However — and I shall come to the reasons presently — I take exception to the wording of the motion, which I feel is perhaps not quite so appropriate or timely. As the Member remarked the importance of equality, like many of these words, lies perhaps as much in perception as in reality. Unfortunately, for many within the Unionist community, the terms "equality" and "Equality Commission" conjure up other images. Indeed, their memories are very much drawn to the Fair Employment Commission, which for many in the Unionist community was heavily discredited. For many of them, it is difficult to approach this issue in the context of trying to create a situation where there is equality of opportunity, which should be our aim for everyone. Many Unionists will view the word "equality" in the same way many people viewed Eastern European states calling themselves "democratic" in the former Soviet era. A concern among many Unionists is whether the Equality Commission will simply be another exercise in discrimination against Unionists.
I do not think that should be the case, and I hope we shall all strive for a situation in which we have full equality of opportunity, not simply in religion, but, as has been mentioned, in gender, ethnic background and disability. All those things should be tackled.
This brings me to the nature of the motion itself. It is rather clumsily worded, for two conclusions could be drawn from it as to what is intended. Either we are congratulating the fact that work is going on in the area of equality, although to be congratulating people on the fact that the matter is being looked at without any examination as to the quality of the work itself seems to be a rather facile notion, or secondly, we are congratulating the output that has been achieved. Given that there was a deadline of 30June, it seems premature to be making a judgement on whether it is achieving, at this stage, its objectives. Indeed, we have heard a wide range of criticism from various Members. It may well be that, given time, those criticisms can be accepted and dealt with, but there is great concern that many of the responses which have been put forward are fairly inadequate and do not cover all the issues. In particular, given the concentration on religious discrimination, other issues such as gender discrimination and giving teeth to disability legislation have tended, in the past, to be pushed to one side. Before we make a judgement on whether the matter is being dealt with properly by the equality review, we need to look at the end product, rather than simply welcoming it at this stage.
I question the methodology that has been used. The sheer number of Departments and statutory bodies producing reports led to a period when all of us were deluged more or less every day with another report from another group. I wonder whether the idea of simply getting every Department or every group to produce its own report was the right approach.
I also wonder whether the issue of equality could be better tackled by a more holistic approach which actually looked at the wider issues, and also whether Government resources have been wisely spent on these dozens of reports, rather than having been used to look at the issue in a broader frame. There is then a tendency to ignore a lot of the bigger issues.
For example, I have severe concerns, from a legal point of view, about some of the powers that the fair employment body had. We had a situation — I do not know whether it has been addressed yet — which particularly discriminated against employers. If an employer lost a case, he could not appeal in terms of quantum; he could appeal only in terms of law. There are a number of similar issues which I do not think —

Mr Patrick Roche: Will the Member give way?

Mr Peter Weir: I do not have time to give way.
There have been a number of issues of that nature. There are issues, in terms of taking a look at the wider approach, as to whether the whole area of disability discrimination has been properly dealt with. I am not sure that simply pigeon-holing it into a wide range of Departments and minor Government bodies is the right way of dealing with it. It should have been dealt with centrally using a bigger approach.
I also question, for example, discrimination in my own constituency. Much has been made of discrimination in a number of areas. North Down, which is supposed to be the "gold coast" of Northern Ireland — [Interruption]

Ms Jane Morrice: Will the Member please draw his remarks to a close.

Mr Peter Weir: North Down, at one stage, had the lowest rate of unemployment in NorthernIreland, but it now has above-average unemployment. I believe that that is due to Government policy. I do not think that this is the right motion for today. I am glad to see it is being debated, but I do not think the wording is correct.

Mr Alex Attwood: First, I want to make an observation about this debate, which I hope will be heard by the bureaucracies inside and outside Government. There is a very high degree of consensus in the Chamber on this issue. There may be some difference of opinion — and there is some profound difference of opinion on the outworking of equality practice — but it is quite clear that, that aside, all those who have spoken today from all the parties now accept that there is an equality duty; that equality has been mainstreamed and that a culture of equality has to prevail inside government and beyond in the North. I have observed, not just for our own benefit but more to ensure that those who are in and close to government and those who are in public authorities in the North understand, that there is a high degree of political consensus on the issue of equality in the North, unlike at any other time in our history. Public authorities in particular need to acknowledge and accept that there is a growing consensus and cohesion and that whatever the past might have been, the political establishment in the North will increasingly make demands from public authorities to ensure that they fulfil their equality functions and equality duties.
While the Chamber understands that public authorities have taken time to come to terms with their new duty under the Northern Ireland Act and acknowledges that the outworking of that, at public authority level, is difficult and requires many changes, nevertheless it is appropriate to put on record what is expected of them. Other Members have referred to that already, so I will only mention two crucial requirements on public authorities which, to date, have not been reflected adequately or at all in the draft equality schemes that they have submitted to the Government.
The first requirement is essential. Section 75 lays two responsibilities on public authorities. There is concern that public authorities will concentrate on one to the absence of the other. That will not be accepted by politicians or by the Equality Commission in the North. The two duties are to pay due regard to the need to promote equality and opportunity and to have regard to the desirability of promoting good relations. We can easily imagine situations where, while fulfilling their equality of opportunity duty, they will respect community relations but fail to promote equality of opportunity as required by the legislation.
Public authorities need to appreciate that the higher duty upon them is the need to fulfil equality of opportunity. While it is desirable to promote community relations, that is a lesser duty, even though it is a high duty that they owe to the local community. Public authorities need to be aware of the difference and of the primacy of the need to promote equality of opportunity rather than the desirability of promoting community relations.
The second point I want to make to the public authorities is that there is a lack of definition and detail in the draft equality schemes that they have submitted to the Government. They need to demonstrate much more conclusively that they are prepared to invest in the equality duty, the resources and all the other requirements necessary to see that it works in practice. In particular, they need to demonstrate more fully the requirement for training to be undertaken by public officials to ensure that the duty is fulfilled. They need to outline more clearly how resources are going to be invested to ensure that the duty is fulfilled, and how they are going to apply the principles of their equality schemes generally. They need to outline clarity in screening to ensure that we understand why public authorities select some of their functions rather than others when it comes to applying the public authority duty.
Finally, and most centrally, the public authorities need to outline how each equality duty and equality scheme fulfils the Targeting Social Need requirement of Government. A former Secretary of State said Targeting Social Need was one of three compelling requirements of government in the North. Public authorities need to demonstrate that in practice in each area.

Mr Jim Shannon: A "rough draft" of the American Declaration of Independence states
"We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable; that all men are created equal and independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
That puts the proposer of the motion in perspective. It talks about equality, but the person who brought forward the motion is talking about a different type of equality which ignores the community that I come from and represent. They are here only because for 30 years they have tried to kill the Unionist community and put them under pressure.
I want to dwell upon some of the equality issues. They are issues that affect each and every one of us, are important to us all and affect many different parts of our community. When we talk about equality in relation to maternity services being moved from Jubilee to west Belfast, where is the equality for the community in east Belfast? Where is the equality when over £50 million is put into Irish language schools to the detriment of other schools and other education?
We now have two Ministers responsible for issues such as these. Perhaps they could start by looking at equality in their Departments and making sure that equality in every facet of life is looked at and dealt with. Unfortunately, many of us in the Unionist community feel that this equality legislation has failed to assure us that we are entitled to equality of treatment first, as every other part of the community is. Many Unionists look at it today and say "No, we are not part of this equality agenda and we are going to lose out."
Those of us who are elected representatives, including councillors, will be snowed under by this mountain of paperwork that we have on equality issues from every Department looking for our opinions. I am concerned that what will result is legislation that the councils will not be able to operate fully because of the workload. Officers in my council have said that this will be a very difficult issue for them, taking so much time and manpower. Everything that happens in council and Government life will be affected by equality issues.
One item that I am glad will be included relates to planning, a matter of concern in the area I represent. Even though they make their representations to the Planning Service, many people feel that their opposition to planning developments that will directly affect the area they live in are not really considered. So I am glad to see that they will be able to request a hearing and have direct input into planning matters. This will allow them to feel that they are part of the process.
I am also concerned about senior citizens and those with disabilities. Those with disabilities have not had the full support of the law of the land over the last few years. Some people with disabilities are only being recognised now, and that is something that we want to see happening more at every level by councils, the Assembly and MPs. Our disabled people, senior citizens and those who deserve extra consideration must feel that this equality agenda involves them.
We also have a problem with equality of funding. Many parts of the Unionist community feel that they have not received as much funding from Europe as they should have. They wish to see the balance addressed so that all those who have not received the proper funding will feel part of the process.
We are also looking for equality for Ulster-Scots. When it comes to handing out funding, there is no equality for that either. We want to see equality for the Ulster-Scots language, equality and parity of funding, full representation and the opportunity to express that language at every level of society.
In conclusion, we must have every possible opportunity for everyone, and everybody in the community must feel part of it.

Mr Alban Maginness: Inequality was, and still is, a potent issue in our divided society — indeed, it was historic inequality which gave rise to the Civil Rights Movement. The equality issues that we are debating today, and which form a central part of the Good Friday Agreement, are really the unfinished business of the Civil Rights Movement — a campaign which was prematurely interrupted by the divisive and bloody campaign of violence by both Republican and Loyalist paramilitaries. Happily, there now is a widespread, though belated, recognition that these issues of inequality and equality are much more productive in terms of bringing about a beneficial effect on our society than concentrating on what was called the national question.
The SDLP welcomes the Good Friday Agreement’s emphasis on equality issues. I would particularly like to discuss the Secretary of State’s role under Section 75. First, it is vital that he designate UK authorities and public bodies involved in policing and other key areas so that the equality duty under section 75 applies to them. We are concerned that the Secretary of State has not said which bodies will be so designated. That has yet to be done. It is important that as many UK bodies as possible be designated. For example, the Department of Social Security should be designated, since its policies have a huge effect on parity issues in Northern Ireland. We have also publicly called for the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor’s Office to be designated. This would ensure fairness and equality in Northern Ireland.
The Secretary of State has other important roles. Where the Equality Commission does not believe that a public authority’s draft equality scheme is adequate that scheme can be referred to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State then has the choice of accepting the scheme, directing that it be revised, or making a new scheme for that body. This is a very important power. Where the Equality Commission receives a complaint that a public authority is not fulfilling its equality duty in practice it can investigate and, if it finds the complaint to be justified, refer it to the Secretary of State. In the case of Northern Ireland bodies, the Secretary of State can ultimately direct the body to take the necessary steps to remedy the problem. That is also a crucial power. It is important that the Secretary of State has a dedicated equality unit supporting him to ensure that section 75 is fully and effectively implemented.
In our view, the Secretary of State has a key role in the implementation of section 75 and in ensuring that the promise of the individual equality schemes is realised in practice. We hope that he will rise to this challenge.

Mr Sammy Wilson: At the outset, I wish to say — and I am sure that my Colleagues will have pointed this out, in my absence, on behalf of the DUP — that we have absolutely no problem with the mainstreaming of the equality issue for Government Departments in Northern Ireland. Many people in the Unionist community are now experiencing the effects of unequal treatment and discrimination. It is essential that equality issues be brought to the fore. However, it is ironic — though perhaps not unexpected — that this issue has been brought before us by a party which, by its actions, shows that it has total contempt for equality on an almost daily basis. It really does not give two hoots about ensuring that people are treated equally. I have no doubt that at the end of this debate members of Sinn Féin will troop into this Assembly and through the voting lobby to vote for the motion.
I could mention them one by one, but I do not have time. I will just mention one. Maybe it should be indicated to Barry "the bantam bully" McElduff, that when we talk about not discriminating against people, or about promoting equality of opportunity between persons of different political opinions, that means not intimidating pensioners who happen to think that it is appropriate to sit on a police liaison committee.

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. The Member should be cautious about his remarks.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Maybe he will also be informed that equality of opportunity means that if someone speaks to you in a language other than Irish, you do not pounce on him and abuse him. I have no doubt that MrMcElduff will raise his hand in support of this motion, but it is quite clear that he has not got a clue about what it means in practice.
I will deal with some of the issues on the equality scheme. As I said at the outset, I have no difficulty in supporting a sensible equality scheme for Northern Ireland and for Departments in Northern Ireland. However, I will not make myself part of Sinn Féin’s abuse of this House. They pretend to support equality while in practice they ignore the issues of equality.
I will outline where a lot of this equality legislation falls down. I have listened to AlbanMaginness, who tells us that this is the culmination of the unfinished business of the Civil Rights Association. Over the last 30 years we have had legislation by the book load from Westminster. We have had Fair Employment legislation, Equal Opportunity legislation and all the rest, and we still hear the same old story from Nationalists that there is inequality.
Perhaps this illustrates the danger in thinking that the issue can be sorted out simply by providing a lot of legislation. First this equality legislation must not do away with individual responsibility. We have a list of rights for people in this society, but people tend to ignore their responsibilities in society. That should not be submerged in any discussion on individual rights.
Secondly, we run into danger when we elevate individual rights above the needs of society. It is important that this legislation should not go in that direction. I will draw my remarks to a close. There are many other points that I wish to make, but there is a very real danger that this legislation … [Interruption]

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. The Member’s time is up.
With regard to the remarks concerning the possibility of the Speaker, or the Deputy Speaker, allowing the House to be abused I will look closely at Hansard.

Mr Patrick Roche: It will not take five minutes to make my simple point. I want to use the opportunity of this debate on equality to make the point that there is absolutely no evidence available to sustain the proposition that there ever was systematic discrimination against the Catholic community in Northern Ireland. If someone wants to dispute that, I had the pleasure of editing a book, that was published a few months ago, in which there is a chapter by Graham Gudgin dealing with the two fundamental claims made about the issue of equality — inequality in housing and inequality in jobs.
Dr Gudgin has put forward arguments absolutely impossible for anyone familiar with the statistics to refute, and no one has ever even attempted it. No one from the Nationalist side of the House — or from among those who are committed to the idea that there was a long period of systematic inequality against Catholics in Northern Ireland — has ever even attempted it, because they know they could not sustain their arguments.
The argument about Catholic unemployment was something they discovered in 1971. Interestingly enough, it never formed a significant part of the civil rights programme. But in 1971 the census showed that two and a half times more Catholics than Protestants were unemployed, and that figure has largely been sustained over a thirty-year period, despite the fair-employment legislation we have. DrGudgin and Prof Breen, who now holds a chair in Oxford and who was one of the top researchers in the Economic and Social Research Institute, published a paper a few years ago. This paper demonstrated that a high proportion of long-term unemployment among the Catholic population was simply due to the abnormally high rate of population increase in that section of the community. There were certain other factors, but that was a key one. Nobody has ever refuted those statistics from two of the top researchers in NorthernIreland.
Statistics for employment since 1990 demonstrate that the relative number of Protestants in employment has declined, while the number of Catholics has increased. Therefore, over a period, I and a number of other people carried on a public debate against the so-called Fair Employment Commission with the argument that fair-employment legislation massively discriminated against the Protestant community. It was so discriminatory that the commission’s own employment practices were way out of line with what they should have been. They were employing more Catholics than Protestants. I am sorry to have to use the terminology of Catholic and Protestant, but that is what other people have brought into the public domain.
This debate on equality is about two fundamental things. First it is an attempt, among other things, to undermine the legitimacy of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. The other side of the coin is that, given the absolute poverty of Irish Nationalism, a child — and I challenge anyone on the Nationalist side ever to meet me on a public platform to sustain their position — could demolish the Irish Nationalist case. In order to fortify it, they have developed the idea that there was massive discrimination against the Catholic community in Northern Ireland, which could only be rectified by 30years of unqualified barbarity and terrorism. Its purpose is not only to de-legitimise the status of Northern Ireland within the Union, but to legitimise 30 years of terrorism. That is what the argument is about. Having got this so-called equality agenda inserted into the Belfast Agreement, with the connivance of the Ulster Unionist Party, they are now systematically — [Interruption]
And you too, Mr Ervine. You were among the suckers. In fact, you were one of the biggest of them.

Ms Jane Morrice: I must have order in the House.

Mr Patrick Roche: They have now given instruction to the Nationalist community to use a so-called equality agenda — and we had an example of this this morning — to systematically divest Northern Ireland of its identity within the United Kingdom.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: Go raibh maith agat, Madam Deputy Speaker. First, some of the comments —

Ms Jane Morrice: Order, please.

Rev William McCrea: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it going to be the rule that only one side of the House is to be called to order? Is it that persons on the other side can act however they like and with a blind eye turned, or is there a need for —

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: Listening to this debate and to some of the comments from the other side of the House in particular, is like being with Alice in Wonderland, where the world is topsy-turvy. Some of the comments that have been made are indicative of what has been the problem all along: Unionist denial that there has been institutionalised discrimination in this state since its inception, and that equality was placed at the centre of the Good Friday Agreement as a recognition of that.
People need to get to grips with the reality of all this. There was a reference to GrahamGudgin and the work that he did. In the academic world a lot of his work has not been recognised or received very well. A large body of academic work lays down the proof of the inequalities that existed. One of the things that is very significant in this debate is that the DUP in particular, and Unionism in general, is arguing against equality. The question needs to be asked: who fears equality? Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Denis Haughey: I welcome the motion, and I agree with the Member who moved it that existing fair employment and equality legislation has not produced the degree or speed of change that I would have wished to see. This is shown by the persistence of the differentials between, for instance, men and women in terms of the income they derive from employment, in terms of unemployment rates between the two sections of our community and in a number of other ways.
The section 75 statutory obligations are an integral part of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and they put the mainstreaming of equality onto a statutory basis for the first time ever. The mainstreaming of equality means ensuring that due regard is given to equality considerations in the decision-making processes of all public authorities. The benefits of this are very obvious — better decision making, since we will examine how different policy options could impact on different sections of the community; greater equality, since we will endeavour to ensure that equality of opportunity is promoted; and greater openness, since consultation with the wider members of civic society lies at the very core of section 75.
The statutory obligations arose out of the earlier administrative initiative — policy appraisal and fair treatment (PAFT). The Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights found that PAFT was not being implemented as it should have been and recommended that it be placed on a statutory footing to ensure better implementation. A commitment, therefore, to put PAFT on a statutory basis was subsequently included in the Good Friday Agreement. The statutory obligations are, therefore, not just legally binding, they are also among the key initiatives promised by the Good Friday Agreement. Implementing section 75 correctly and effectively must be a key priority for the Administration and for all of us. It is as simple as that.
The obligation relates to a wide spectrum of equality of opportunity and not just to areas of religion, political opinion, gender, race and disability, where there are already laws against discrimination. Age, marital status, sexual orientation and whether one has dependants or not must also be taken into account. Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act requires public authorities, in carrying out their functions, to have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity in all of these categories. They should also have regard to the need to promote good relations between people of different religions, political opinions and racial groups. I am not aware of any country that has created such a sophisticated framework for the mainstreaming of equality as we have here in Northern Ireland. We can rightly consider ourselves to be at the cutting edge and to be setting an example to the world in the promotion of best practice.
The obligations are to be implemented through equality schemes, which public authorities should submit to the Equality Commission by 30June 2000. A very wide process of consultation has been going on recently. This has included the 11Northern Ireland Departments, and their consultations are coming to an end. The Executive Committee is committed to the effective implementation of the section 75 obligations, which is a legal requirement.
In the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, we see section 75 as an important part of the equality agenda and of promoting better community relations — both of which are our responsibility. Section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act is a reserved matter under which the Secretary of State has specific responsibilities in relation to agreed guidelines from the Equality Commission, designating additional public authorities and dealing with equality schemes referred to him by the Commission.
I cannot answer for the Secretary of State in the discharge of these functions. However, we can state our commitment that the Northern Ireland Departments will submit comprehensive and effective equality schemes to the Equality Commission, it is to be hoped by the end of the month. However, given the difficulties of recent months, there may be some slippage — something we hope to keep to an absolute minimum.
The schemes, which are currently out for consultation, were approved for publication during suspension by Northern Ireland Office Ministers. Much work remains to be done to improve the draft equality schemes over coming weeks. I agree with the criticisms made of some of those we have seen. The equality schemes are a new initiative, and consultation is raising a number of interesting points, as many Members have pointed out. I am also taking my own view of the schemes, and the Equality Unit is currently considering how best to ensure that the devolved Administration takes forward that work over the coming weeks.
Ministers in the Executive Committee will also pay attention to how consultation responses have been taken into account in the finalised equality schemes.
The Equality Unit in the Office of the First and Deputy First Minister has assisted Departments with guidance and training on these statutory obligations. That will continue in coming months as Departments implement their equality schemes. In particular, equality impact assessments on new and existing policies will introduce a new element to the administrative culture of Northern Ireland. It will place emphasis on analysis, openness, consultation and consideration of alternatives. This is an important element in our new institutional arrangements, and I hope it will contribute to the effective promotion of equality of opportunity.
We are happy to support this motion and we fully welcome section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act.
During the debate a considerable number of points have been made by Members. Many of them have been extremely constructive and require positive answers from the Executive Committee. It is not possible in the time I have left to deal with all of them. Junior Minister Nesbitt will deal with as many as possible in seven and a half minutes, and we will undertake to reply in writing to those Members who do not have an answer to the questions they have raised today.

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: First, I reply to Mr Poots with respect to the European Union funding. Yes, that is an equality aspect; yes, it is being dealt with in cross-cutting measures; yes, a need has been identified for an outreach approach, since the Protestant community has not been as active as it should have been in applying for European Union funds. Equality is being dealt with in that manner.
I refer to points made by MrPoots, MrWeir — with respect to another form of discrimination against Unionists, if that is what Unionists see as equality — and MrShannon, who said that Unionists see equality as just not including them. That may, but should not, be the case.
Equality is for all, and for the benefit of all if it is properly applied. I agree with MrSWilson’s first comment that the Unionist community, or any community, has nothing to fear in dealing appropriately with equality. That is why I am happy to reflect those views.
With regard to ProfMcWilliams’s point about the timescale, she may be right. However, there is a legislative limit which states that it must take place by 30June, and therefore consultation is taking place over eight weeks. When the consultation comes back the Executive will make sure that that aspect is fully dealt with. The Ministers will be committed to those schemes.
(Mr Speaker in the Chair)
With reference to MrShannon’s point about the Ulster-Scots language, he is correct in a sense. However, there is no scope in section 75 to deal with language. It is a reserved matter, the responsibility of Westminster, and when it, dealt with it Parliament did not accept the language balance of Ulster-Scots versus Irish or English. However, I draw the attention of all Members who raised that question to the commitment in the Good Friday Agreement to minority languages, and to Ulster-Scots. There is also a commitment given regarding the Council of Europe’s Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, and that has been implemented.
I regret that MrRoche is not here, and I trust that he will read avidly what I am about to say. [Interruption] I sometimes wonder which side of the House some Members are on, from the point of view of Unionism. That is why I used those precise words.
MrRoche talked about the connivance of the Ulster Unionist Party on the equality agenda. I refute that out of hand. I personally wrote the minority report of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. I am actually doing something about equality for Unionists. MrRoche and others would not even have an Assembly here, and they would have the affairs of Northern Ireland dealt with by the Government at Westminster whom they all say they cannot trust.
My last point is an important and sensitive one. MrC Murphy mentioned that Catholics are still more than twice as likely to be unemployed as Protestants. Let me say something very clearly, and not out of a sense of bravado as some others might. I am very conscious of where I stand and that what I say is recorded; therefore I measure my words very carefully. There are two statistics and this is confusing. I note what MrCampbell said about the percentage of recruitment. When one talks about Catholics being twice as likely to be unemployed as Protestants, one is dealing with the actual stock of unemployment, which has absolutely nothing to do with recruitment. While I accept that the proportion of Catholic unemployed is higher than Protestant unemployed, it has nothing to do with discrimination.
Let me make it clear that there is no automatic link whatsoever between unemployment rates and whether or not there is equality of opportunity. There are many things that have an impact, such as immigration, retirement patterns and the likelihood of people wishing to work.
Finally, let me make it very clear — [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: I am happy to wait for order.
It is perfectly possible to have both fair employment and equality of opportunity, and to have the differential in unemployment statistics unchanged. There is no apriori link between unemployment differentials and discrimination. The sad point about unemployment differentials and equality of opportunity — and it is something that I put into print several years ago, and I repeat it now as this is a very sensitive issue — is that it has both communities in Northern Ireland feeling ill at ease with one another. In simple terms, the Catholic community in Northern Ireland feels it is discriminated against, and, at the same time, the Protestant community feels that it is being told that it is a discriminating group. Both communities are incorrect in their perceptions. Therefore, this aspect of unemployment differential must be very carefully stated in measured tones on all occasions.

Mr Speaker: Your time is up.

Mr Denis Haughey: On a point of order, MrSpeaker. An important point has been raised by Members opposite — whether MrNesbitt speaks for me, or, indeed, I for him. We are both responding in a general sense on behalf of the Administration. Obviously we have different views, otherwise there would be no need for the Good Friday Agreement, and we cannot, and do not, presume to speak for each other in that particular sense.

Mr Speaker: I will take a point of order from MrDodds before responding to MrHaughey’s point of order.

Mr Nigel Dodds: It is helpful that the junior Minister has clarified that he was speaking not on behalf of the Executive as a whole but for himself and his party, and that the same applied to MrNesbitt. It shows the nature of collective responsibility we have under this scheme.
MrHaughey referred to section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act, and I would be interested to know what he meant by that.

Mr Speaker: This is not an opportunity for you to ask further questions of the junior Minister. It was a point of order that you raised, and this is a matter for the Chair to respond to, along with the previous point of order from the junior Minister, MrHaughey. My understanding about the way in which a Minister responds by way of a winding-up speech is that he is speaking on behalf of the Executive, whereas junior Ministers are speaking on behalf of their principals.
I call upon the Member who moved the motion to respond if he so wishes.

Mr Conor Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. This has been a very useful and informative debate. There were a number of relevant points, and I thank all of the Members for their contributions. I also thank the two junior Ministers from the Office of the First and Deputy First Ministers for attending and giving a view from that Office and from the Executive.
Mr Éamonn ONeill queried the intention of the motion. As I said at the outset, the purpose of the motion was to give the Assembly an opportunity to discuss this matter and to comment on the production of equality schemes at a time when they are out for consultation and before the deadline is reached, so that the views of the elected representatives could be given. People felt that during the period of suspension — and it has been reflected in many of the contributions today — proper adherence to the equality requirements seemed to have slipped. I thought that it was an opportune time for public representatives to give their views on this matter.
The motion is positive, and it was not by my design but was the result of the method by which it was agreed by the Business Committee. If I had had proper time to draft the motion and get it in front of the Business Committee, I imagine that it would have reflected the great degree of scepticism expressed by many. That was my view on the issue.
In order to get the debate aired I undertook to submit a take-note motion which mentioned equality schemes and allowed Members to make their contributions.
I am glad to hear, from MrPoots’s contribution, that the DUP shares many of the concerns of everyone else on equality. I am glad that many of its Members expressed their commitment to equality, but they need to recognise that where inequalities exist — some of them do recognise this and some of them do not — they need to be properly addressed to make sure that we are all starting from a level playing field.
With regard to the use of the 1991 census figures, if MrPoots could provide us with the 2001 census figures, he should be elevated to the Front Bench. The 1991 figures are the only ones we have to work from.
I welcome the remarks of ProfMcWilliams and agree that while some of the public bodies that responded appear to be making genuine efforts, that was the case with too few. I share particular concerns about the equality schemes produced by the Departments under our jurisdiction. I hope that the junior Ministers present will note the concerns that were expressed across the House today and that we will find them reflected in the work of the Executive and, in turn, of the Departments.
Similar concerns were expressed by PatriciaLewsley over disability discrimination. I share her view that the full use of section 75 would give proper effect to the Disability Discrimination Act.
It was interesting to hear GregoryCampbell’s commitment to equality, particularly where it concerns disability and gender. It has been a noted trait of the DUP in general and of himself in particular that they display particular vehemence or disdain towards female Members of the House. Yet they allege commitment to gender equality. They seem to reserve particular vitriol for women Members speaking from this side of the House, from whatever party they happen to belong to. I would like to see their commitment to gender equality put into practice when people are speaking.
His figures remind me of KingCanute, or Paddy Roche, or, indeed, DavidIrving. Not our DavidErvine but the Holocaust historian. It reminds me somewhat of the stand KingCanute took, in the face of all historical research and evidence, in an attempt to argue his case.
MichelleGildernew paid particular attention to some of the public bodies and bodies in receipt of public funding that have not yet been designated by PeterMandelson. Other Members also drew attention to that.
On PeterWeir’s contribution, I am sorry — and other Unionists reflect this — that many Unionists see the equality agenda as threatening to their perspective. DermotNesbitt quite rightly said that this is not the case and should not be the case. Leaders from within the Unionist community must stress to them that equality is something which threatens nobody here. It is of benefit to everyone. He was quite detailed in his criticisms of my motion and of the many efforts that have been made to address equality, although he was vague on alternative solutions.
AlexAttwood’s contributions reflected the intention of the motion, which was to air this issue in the Chamber. I am glad that it appears to have worked out that way, and I hope that the views from the Chamber will be reflected in the work of public bodies and the Departments. People here are dissatisfied with the standard of the equality schemes produced so far. They are dissatisfied that the bodies all appear to be working off one template, and that leads to great concern about the intent behind them. This is a serious issue, and AlexAttwood —

Mr Peter Weir: Since the Member has said on a number of occasions that he is dissatisfied with the work being done, why did he move a motion to note it with approval? Surely there is a contradiction in this.

Mr Conor Murphy: Perhaps the Member was not listening when I explained the way in which the motion was put to the Business Committee in my absence. Perhaps he likes to pose questions but not listen to the answers. This was the way of airing the matter that was agreed through the Business Committee — a take-note motion to get the issue of equality schemes on the agenda. I do note with approval some of the work that is being carried out.
As MonicaMcWilliams noted, some public bodies have been making genuine efforts to address what is required by way of equality schemes. Many have not, and this is an opportunity for people to —

Mr Peter Weir: If this was merely a take-note motion, why did it not simply say "take note" rather than "take note with approval"? If one is not satisfied, why are the words "with approval" there? Surely it should simply be "take note" — something which I am sure everyone could agree on.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: Would it be in order for me to thank MrWeir for his enlightenment? We all deeply appreciate it and wish we saw and heard more of him.

Mr Speaker: I am not sure that that is either in order or a point of order, but the Member made his point in any case.

Mr Conor Murphy: It is quite obvious that MrWeir has no one to represent him at the Business Committee, something which speaks for his current position of somewhat splendid isolation on the Unionist Benches. He has no one to represent him, otherwise the Chief Whip of the Unionist Party would have been able to inform him that, in his absence from the Business Committee, an undertaking was given that a generally positive motion on this issue would be presented to the Assembly. The other members of the Business Committee, to their credit, accepted that without prejudice to other motions that might be put, and that was the manner in which the motion was put on the agenda. I am sorry that Mr Weir does not have anyone from the Business Committee to speak to him, but if he engaged with some of the other parties they might fill him in. [Interruption]
I was represented there, and that is how the motion got on the agenda — with the agreement of the party of the Minister for Social Development.
With regard to MrShannon’s contribution, I should like to inform him that Jubilee Hospital is, in fact, in south Belfast and not in the east, as he referred to.
I am glad to hear that Ards Borough Council, of which he is a member, is beginning to address this issue and appreciate the seriousness of its responsibilities under section75 of the equality requirements, and is beginning to prepare for this, however begrudgingly his portrayal of what the council is doing appears to be.
I agree with AlbanMaginness that the Secretary of State has a huge responsibility in this, with much more to do by way of designation, and that we may well be looking to him to use his authority in enforcing adherence to equality requirements. That is something we need to bear in mind.
As for SammyWilson’s contribution, it is somewhat amusing to receive a lecture about equality from someone who revelled over many years in being an arch-bigot of the city hall. He is somewhat confused, telling us on the one hand that members of the Nationalist community had plenty of legislation to deal with employment discrimination over the years with which they should have been satisfied, yet we are in danger of creating too much legislation now. On the one hand we should be satisfied with loads of it, but we should not desire any more.
I am pleased that the junior Ministers representing the office in which the equality unit is located, particularly MrHaughey, are in agreement with many of the points I made in my opening remarks concerning dissatisfaction with the equality schemes. I am also pleased and encouraged to hear that implementing section75 is a key priority for the Executive. I undertake to hold the Departments to his commitment to adequate equality schemes, and I agree that much work needs to be done in ensuring that these are adequate and not the shadow ones we have had so many of to date.
As for DermotNesbitt’s analysis of the unemployment differentials, I shall merely say that many noted academics, and indeed many of his own ministerial Colleagues, would disagree with his analysis. I beg to differ.

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: Let me make it very clear. I am not quoting Colleagues. I refer to the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, the Statistical and Research Agency and others who have made it abundantly clear. I made it clear I was not making a comment about discrimination, but rather about unemployment differential as an indication of discrimination. There is not necessarily any a priori link between the two.

Mr Conor Murphy: Doctors differ and patients die. With no disrespect to any of the doctors present, I contest some of the analysis, and I believe that many other people in that field would do likewise.
I am disappointed by the lack of participation from the Ulster Unionist Party. MrNesbitt is here representing the Executive, not his own party, and I am disappointed that, apart from one unauthorised Member, nobody else spoke on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party.
The absence of many Members from the Benches opposite is somewhat disappointing for those of us who believe that all who signed up to the Good Friday Agreement felt that equality was a central aspect of it. I am glad to hear that reaffirmed by MrNesbitt but, again, he is speaking on behalf of the Executive and not on behalf of his party. I would have preferred it if Members from the Ulster Unionist Party had taken part in the debate and had given their views on equality schemes, section75, and the full implementation of all of that.
The purpose of the debate was to allow Members’ views to be aired on this issue. This is our first opportunity to put motions down since we came back. It is a very important time. Equality schemes are out there at the moment, they are doing the rounds, and they are out for consultation. As MonicaMcWilliams pointed out, very few of them have come to Assembly Members for any detailed consultation, other than a quick response and a very limited consultation period. This was a good opportunity for Members to air their feelings, and there was a broad degree of dissatisfaction. I hope that is reflected through the junior Minister to the Executive and into the Departments — those were some of the most disappointing equality schemes — and also into all the public bodies. I hope that the views, the general sense of this debate and the contributions made today are reflected back. That was the purpose of putting this motion on the agenda; there was no other purpose. If that is reflected back and comes back out in a much improved sense of intent and commitment to the proper implementation of equality, as required under section75 of the Act, this will have been a beneficial debate.
Question put.
The Assembly divided: Ayes 37; Noes 23.
AYES
Ian Adamson, Alex Attwood, Eileen Bell, P J Bradley, John Dallat, Bairbre de Brún, Arthur Doherty, Mark Durkan, David Ervine, Seán Farren, David Ford, Michelle Gildernew, Denis Haughey, Joe Hendron, John Kelly, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Alex Maskey, Kieran McCarthy, Donovan McClelland, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Alan McFarland, Gerry McHugh, Pat McNamee, Monica McWilliams, Francie Molloy, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Sean Neeson, Mary Nelis, Dermot Nesbitt, Danny O’Connor, Dara O’Hagan, Éamonn ONeill, Sue Ramsey, John Tierney.
NOES
Fraser Agnew, Paul Berry, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Wilson Clyde, Nigel Dodds, Oliver Gibson, William Hay, David Hilditch, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, William McCrea, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Edwin Poots, Mark Robinson, Patrick Roche, Jim Shannon, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Sammy Wilson.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly notes with approval the work to be completed by 30June2000 by public bodies in order to comply with the requirements of section 75 of the NorthernIreland Act 1998.

Financial Assistance For Political Parties Bill

Royal Assent

Mr Speaker: I wish to inform Members that Royal Assent to the Financial Assistance for Political Parties Bill has been signified. The measure became law on 10February 2000.
Adjourned at 4.27 pm.